2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit 3-3-2008 

# G arl and v . U S Airwa ys Inc P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-5191

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://di git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" G arl and v . U S Air wa ys Inc " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1480. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/1480NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 06- 5191, 07- 1115, 07- 1452, 07- 1672, 07- 1773, 07- 1876, 07- 1999

___________ P HI L I P A. GAR L AND, A ppel l ant

v. U S A I R W A Y S I N C , a C o rp o r a t i o n , a n d i n d i v i d u a l l y, o f f i c i a l l y, a n d P r o f

e s s i o n a l l y; S T E P HE N M . WOLF ; RA KE S H GANG WALD ; GR E G GI BS ON; E D B UL AR ; DON M ATH EW S; RO N SCH I LLI NG ; RI CK DA VI ES; DA VI D SI EGA L; HA RO LD S I M P S ON; M I CH E L L E BR YAN; T OM J E RMAN; E VE L YN B E CK E R; DONNA L E W I S; A I R L I N E PI L O T S A SSO C I A T I O N I N T E R N A T I O N A L , a LaborO r gani zat i on; a n d i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l l y; J A M E S J O H N S O N ; T H E U S A I R W A Y S P I L O T 'S S YST EM BOARD OF ADJ UST M ENT , a F e d e r a l La b o rArb i tr a t i o n P a n e l ; EDWA RD B. K R IN S K Y , ind ividu all y , o ff ici all yan d p rof

essio n all y ; PE N S IO N B E N E F IT G U A R A N T Y C O R P O R A T IO N , a g o v e rn m e n t co rp o ra tio n , ind iv id u a lly , an d o f f icia lly a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l l y; P A R M A B . J O S H I , i n d i v i d u a l l y, o f f i c i a l l y a n d p r o f

e s s i o n a l l y; DUANE WOER T H, i n d i v i d u a l l y , o f f i c i a l l ya n d p r o f

e s s i o n a l l y ; BR ADL E Y D. BE L T , Di r e c t o r , i n d i v i d u a l l y , o f f i c i a l l ya n d p r o f

e s s i o n a l l y ; BR UC E L AKE F I E L D, I ndi vi dual l y , offi ci al l yand pr ofes s i onal l y ; SA R A H B E A N , I ndi vi dual l y , offi ci al l yand

p r o f e s s i o n a l l y ; UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 05- 0140 ( H onor abl e D onett a W . A m br os e)

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February1, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges ( fi l ed: M ar ch 3, 2008 )2 ___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. Phi l i p G ar l and appe al s fr om the di s m i s s al of a l aw s ui the fi l ed aga i ns ttw enty - four defe ndant s aft erhe w as fi r ed fr om U S A i rw ay s as an ai r l i ne pi l ot . A ft era ca r eful r evi ew o f th e re c o rd , w e w ill a f

f irm th e o rd e rs o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I . B ackgr ound W e nee d nots etouta det ai l ed ac countof the ext ens i ve hi s t oryof G ar l and’ s cas es butw i l l onl ybr i efl ys t at e the r el evantpr ocedur al hi s t oryas a bac kdr op forthe pr es ent a p p e a l. G a rla n d f

iled th is s u it i n F e b ru a ry2 0 0 5 a lleg in g w id e -ra n g in g f e d e ra l an d sta te c l a i ms b a s e d u p o n h i s a l l e g e d l yd i s c r i mi n a t o ryt e r mi n a t i o n f r o m U S Ai rwa y s , I n c . ( “ US A ir w a y s ” ) a s a n a ir lin e p ilo t a n d b a s e d u p o n th e a rb itr a tio n th a t u p h e ld th e te rm in a tio n . Y ears befo re, i n 1 98 6, G arl and had fi l ed a law sui tchall eng i ng U S A i rw ay s’ di s c r i mi na t oryhi r i ng pr a c t i c e s ba s e d o n r a c e . A ft e ra be nc h tr i a l i n 1 99 1 b e fo r e the U . S. D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, he pr evai l ed. H e cont i nued fl y i ng f o r U S A irw a y s u n til th e a irline ter m in a ted h im in A p ril 2 0 0 1 f o r f a ilu re to m a in tain h is qual i fi cat i ons , namel y , a val i d pi l ot ’ s l i cens e. G ar l and l os tan arbi tr at i on overthe ter m in a tio n . In th e m e a n tim e , h e f iled se v e ra l m o tio n s in th e 1 9 8 6 a c tio n a n d e v e n tu a lly so u g h t t o reo p en an d ad d d ef en d an ts an d claim s to the 1 9 8 6 ca se. T h o se e ff o rt s w ere re jec ted b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w h ich in stru c ted h im to f ile a se p a ra te la w su it reg a rd in g h is3

ter m in a tio n . G a rla n d d id so in th e in sta n t su it, a n d h e su b se q u e n tlya m e n d e d h is compl ai nttw o t i m es overthe cour s e of ne ar l ytw o y ear s . A ft erm os tof the tw enty - four defe ndant s had fi l ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the def endant s i n a se rie s o f o rd e rs f ro m w h ich G a rla n d f

iled se v e n in d iv id u a l ap p e a ls. A ll o f th o se a p p e a ls h a v e b e e n c o n s o lid a te d . I ti s i m por t antt o not e cont extual l yforthi s appea l thats i nce G ar l and w as t erm i nat ed fr om U S A i rw ay s i n 2001, the ai r l i ne fi l ed forbankrupt cytw i ce. G ar l and fi l ed pr oofs of cl ai m s i n both bankrupt ci es , s eeki ng $17 m i l l i on fordi s cr i m i nat i on, h a r a s s me n ta n d r e t a l i a t i o n . T h e Ba n k ru p t c yCo u r tg r a n t e d s u mm a ryj u d g me n tt o US A i rw ay s , fi ndi ng thatG ar l and’ s cl ai m s w er e di s al l ow ed as m ootand/ ordi s char ged and, that , i n the al t ernat i ve, theyw er e barr ed byr es j udi cat a. T he U . S. D i s tr i ctC our tforthe E as t ern D i s tr i ctof V i r gi ni a and the U . S. C our tof A ppeal s forthe Four th C i r cui taff i r m ed. I n ourr evi ew of ea ch of the di s m i s s al s befor e the C our ti n thes e cons ol i dat ed appea l s , the s ame fact s fr om G ar l and’ s s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntgovern. R atherthan r es t at e thos e fa ct s her e, w e w i l l r el yon them as s t at ed i n G ar l and’ s compl ai ntand as r es t at ed i n eac h of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s opi ni ons and or der s appea l ed. I I . D i s cus s i on W e r evi ew de novo the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al s forl ack of s ubj ectm att er juri sd ict ion , fa il u re to e ff ec tuate se rvice , an d fa il u re to state a c lai m . S ee In re P h ar-M o r, I nc . Se c . Li t i g. , 17 2 F. 3d 27 0, 27 3 ( 3d Ci r . 19 99 ) ; Tel c or di a Tec h, I nc . v. Tel ko m SA4

L t d. , 458 F. 3d 172, 176- 77 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ; L um v. B ank of A m . , 361 F. 3d 217, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e mustacc eptas true al l fac tual al l egat i ons as s ert ed i n the compl ai ntand d ra w a ll r e a s o n a b le in f

e re n c e s in th e p la in tif

f’s f a v o r w h e n c o n s id e ri n g th e d is m is s a ls . See i d. I n cons i der i ng the di s m i s s al forl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, how ever , the pl ai nt i ff be ar s the bur den of pe r s uadi ng the courtthati thas j ur i s di ct i on. See K ehr P a c k a g e s , In c . v . F id e lc o r, I n c ., 9 2 6 F .2 d 1 4 0 6 , 1 4 0 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ).

A . D ism iss a l o f

U S A irw a y s a n d U S A irw a y s D e f e n d a n ts G ar l and r ai s es num er ous gr ounds forappea l , butof pr i m aryconce rn i s the di s m i s s al of U S A i rw ay s and U S A i rw ay s - as s oci at ed def endant s fr om the l aw s ui ton M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 . Al th o u g h h e a r g u e s th a tth e d i s mi s s a l o f v a r i o u s c l a i ms a g a i n s tUS Ai rwa y s wa s i mp r o p e r , h e f a i l s t o p e r s u a s i v e l yma k e th e c a s e th a ta l mo s ta l l o f h i s c l a i ms agai ns tU S A i rw ay s w er e notdi s char ged bythe conf i r m at i on of U S A i rw ay s ’ bankrupt cy p la n . U n d e r th e B a n k ru p tcy C o d e , d e b to rs a re d isc h a rg e d f ro m d e b ts th a t ar o se p rio r to the conf i r m at i on of a r eor gani zat i on pl an. See 11 U . S. C . § 1141( d) ( 1) ( A ) . T he C ode defi nes “debt ”as “l i abi l i tyon a cl ai m . ” I d. § 101( 12) . A nd “cl ai m ” underthe C ode i ncl udes a “r i ghtt o paym ent , w hetherornots uch r i ghti s r educe d t o j udgm ent , l i qui dat ed, u n liq u id a ted , fix e d , co n tin g e n t, m a tu re d , u n m a tu re d , d isp u ted , u n d isp u ted , leg a l, equ i t able, secured, or unsecu red. ” Id. § 1 01 (5) (A ). F urtherm ore, U S A i rw ay s’ R eor gani zat i on Pl an pr ovi ded: “Pur s uantt o s ect i on 1141( d) of the B ankrupt cyC ode,T w o of G ar l and’ s cl ai m s w er e notdi s char ged bythe bankrupt cybeca us e the 1 under l y i ng fac tual bas i s forthem occurr ed af t erthe bardat e i n U S A i rw ay s ’ s econd bankrupt cycas e of February3, 2005. G ar l and’ s s ect i on 1985( 3) and br eac h of contr act c laim s a g a in st U S A irw a y s in v o lv e d a tele p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n h e h a d w ith o n e o f its bankrupt cycouns el , Sar ah B oehm (mi s t akenl ynamed i n the l aw s ui tas “B ean” ) , on O c to b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 . F o r th e re a so n s e x p lain e d b yth e D istric t C o u rt, G a rla n d h a s f a iled to s t at e a c l ai m on thes e count s . See D i s t . C t . O p. atp. 20- 21; p. 23 n. 18. I n addi t i on, the B ankrupt cyC our tand the East ern D i s tr i ctof V i r gi ni a ana l y zed the fa ct s of thi s cl ai m on G arlan d ’s m o ti o n fo r san cti o n s an d fo u n d G arlan d ’s claim s to b e w ith o u t m erit . S ee In re U S A irw ay s, Inc . , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 9 9 2 4 9 5 at *6 (E . D . V a. O ct. 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 ). 5 exce ptas otherw i s e s peci fi cal l ypr ovi ded i n thi s Pl an ori n the C onfi r m at i on O r der , the di s tr i but i ons and r i ght s thatar e pr ovi ded i n thi s Pl an s hal l be i n compl et e s at i s fac t i on, di s char ge, and r el eas e, . . . of anyand al l C l ai m s and C aus es of A ct i on, . . . i ncl udi ng, but n o tl i mi t e d t o , d e ma n d s a n d l i a b i l i t i e s th a ta r o s e b e f o r e th e Co n f

i r ma t i o n Da t e . . . ” ( US A i rw ay s A ppendi x, at205. ) T he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s C onfi r m at i on O r deri ncorpor at ed this l an g u ag e o f th e P lan. (S ee id. at2 0 1 . ) H er e, G ar l and’ s “r i ghtt o paym ent ” ( di s put ed, of cour s e) on hi s T i t l e V I I and 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 c la im s a ro s e w h e n h e w a s te rm in a te d f ro m h is p o s itio n a t U S A irw a y s . S e e M c S h e rryv . T ra n s W o rld A irline s, In c ., 8 1 F .3 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 1 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). In f a c t, near l yal l of hi s s i xt een othercl ai m s agai ns tthe ai r l i nes , w i th the exc ept i on of tw o m i nor c la im s , a ro s e b e f

o re U S A ir w a y s ’ r e o rg a n iz a tio n p la n w a s c o n f ir m e d . 1 G ar l and does notdi s put e thi s , butcount er s thatthe debt s s houl d notbe di s char ged w her e a de bt or ’ s conducthas been di s hones t . H e es s ent i al l ycl ai m s thathe es t abl i s hed a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o f

d i s c r i mi n a t i o n a n d th e r e f o r e h a d a r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u mp t i o n th a tUSGa r l a n d d i d n o tc h a l l e n g e th e d i s mi s s a l s o f Du a n e E . Wo e r th , p r e s i d e n to f AL P A, 2 and J ames W . J ohns on, an A L PA att orneyw ho r epr es ent ed G ar l and dur i ng the arbi tr at i on, fr om the s ui ti n hi s openi ng br i ef on appeal , and s o w e w i l l notaddr es s them her e. See Labor er s ’ I nt ’ l U ni on of N . A m . v. Fost erW heel erC orp. , 26 F. 3d 375, 398 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( i s s ue notbr i efe d i s w ai ved on appe al ) . A l though G ar l and s ugges t s i n hi s br i ef 6 A i rw ay s had enga ged i n unl aw ful conduct . T her e ar e tw o pr obl ems w i th thi s pr opos i t i on, how ever . Fi r s t , G ar l and di d notes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof V i r gi ni a expl ai ned, G ar l and di d notm ake a pri m a facie s ho w i ng of d i scr i m i nati on , ret al i at i on or harass m ent. S ee In r e U S A i rw ay s, In c ., 2 0 0 6 W L 2 9 9 2 4 9 5 a t * 5 -6 (E .D . V a . O c t. 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 ). T h e F o u rt h C ir c u it a f f ir m e d . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a expl ai ned, w e ar e bound u n d er the p ri n ciples o f re s jud icata to h o n o r th e jud g m en t of tho se c o u rt s, an d G arlan d ’s cl ai m s w oul d be barr ed. I n addi t i on, G ar l and appe ar s t o have mi s appr ehende d the B ankrupt cyC ode on di s char ge: w hi l e pr ovi s i ons of the C ode exc eptcert ai n i ndi vi dual d e b to rs f ro m d is c h a rg e w h e re th e re h a s b e e n “ w illf u l a n d m a lic io u s in

ju ry b yth e d e b to r,” th e s a m e p ro v is io n s d o n o t a p p ly to c o rp o ra te d e b to rs f ilin g u n d e r C h a p te r 1 1 . B . D i s m i s s al of A L PA , W oerth, and J ohns on G ar l and ar gues thathi s compl ai ntagai ns tthe A i rL i ne Pi l ot s A s s oci at i on, I nt ernat i onal ( “A L PA ”) s houl d nothave be en di s m i s s ed bec aus e the R ai l w ayL aborA ct ( “R L A ”) s houl d nothave pr eempt ed hi s di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai m s w her e he w as l i t i gat i ng fede r al and s t at e r i ght s i ndepende ntof the C ol l ect i ve B ar gai ni ng A gr eement . G ar l and’ s ar gum enti s m i s pl ace d.

2thatpr eempt i on underR L A of a s t at e- l aw di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m w as w r ong, ther e i s no

su c h c laim a p p a re n t in h is c o m p lain t. T o th e e x ten t th a t h e g e n e ra llyo b jec ts to h is s tate l aw cl ai m s bei ng s ubs um ed bythe R L A ’ s D utyof Fai rR epr es ent at i on, w e agr ee w i th the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s a n a lysis . (S e e D is t. C t. O p . 1 2 /1 2 /0 6 , a t 1 0 -1 2 .) 7 Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d Ga r l a n d ’ s f e d e r a l r a c e a n d a g e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms ag ains t A L P A b ec au se h e f ail ed to ex h au st his ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies. A T it le V II cl ai m ant ( and cl ai m ants un der the P enn sy l van i a H um an R el at i on s A ct ) m ustexh aust admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es pr i ort o s eeki ng r el i ef i n fede r al court . “A compl ai ntdoes not s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed unl es s i tas s ert s the s at i s fac t i on of the p r e c o n d i t i o n t o th e s u i ts p e c i f i e d b yT i t l e VI I : p r i o rs u b mi s s i o n o f th e c l a i m t o th e E E OC forconci l i at i on orr es ol ut i on. ” R obi ns on v. D al t on, 107 F. 3d 1018, 1022 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( i n t e rn a l q u o t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) . Ga r l a n d d i d n o td e mo n s tr a t e th a th e e x h a u s t e d h i s c l a i ms w ith th e E E O C , a n d th e d is c ri m in a tio n c la im s w e re p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d . Fur therm or e, the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed hi s cl ai m s under42 U . S. C . §§ 1 9 8 1 a n d 1 9 8 5 (3 ) b e c a u s e h is c la im s w e re b a rr e d b yth e tw o -ye a r s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . G ar l and coul d have f

i l ed hi s cl ai m underthe pr e- 1990 ver s i on of the § 1981 s t atut e, and th e r e f o r e , th e two - y e a rs t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s a p p l i e s t o h i s c l a i m. S e e J o n e s v . R. R. D onnel l ey& Sons Co. , 541 U . S. 369, 382 ( 2004) ( onl yi f ca us e of a ct i on ar i s es under p o st- 1 9 9 0 v ersion o f f

ed era l st atute d o es th e f o u r-y ea r st atute o f li m it ati o n s ap p ly ); G oodm an v. L ukens St eel C o. , 482 U . S. 656, 662 ( 1987) ( agr eei ng w i th thi s C our tthat P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s tw o -ye a r s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s a p p lie d in § 1 9 8 1 a c tio n a g a in s t u n io n ). A8

tw o- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od appl i es t o the § 1985( 3) cl ai m al s o. See B ougherv. U ni v. of P itt sb u rg h , 8 8 2 F .2 d 7 4 , 8 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (h o ld in g th a t P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s tw o -y e a r sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons appl i es t o act i ons under§ 1985( 3) ) . Si nce A L PA ’ s act i ons concl uded af t er th e a rb i tr a t i o n h e a r i n g i n J u l y2 0 0 2 , a n d Ga r l a n d f i l e d th i s a c t i o n i n 2 0 0 5 , h i s c l a i ms under§§ 1981 and 1985 ar e barr ed.

C . D ism iss a l o f

F e d e ra l D e f

e n d a n ts G ar l and s ued tw o Feder al A vi at i on A dm i ni s tr at i on offi ci al s , R i ck D avi es and H aro ld S im p so n (“F ed era l D ef en d an ts”) un d er the F ed era l T o rtC lai m s A ct (“F T C A ”), B iv e n s, a n d o th e r g ro u n d s. G a rla n d a lleg e d th a t th e se tw o F A A a g e n ts o b se rv e d h im d u r i n g a p r o f

i c i e n c yr e e x a mi n a t i o n b yUS Ai rwa y s a n d th a to n o th e ro c c a s i o n s , th e two agent s eval uat ed hi m and gave hi m uns at i s fac t oryr at i ngs . G ar l and al l eges col l us i on by the F A A agen t s w i th U S A i rw ay s and A L P A t o en sure that he w ou l d n ot pass . H e al so m ai nt ai ns thatthe tw o offi ci al s pr ovi ded fa l s e i nform at i on i n aff i davi t s on fi l e w i th the F A A a n d th a t D a v ie s c o m m itte d p e rj u ry a t h is a rb itr a tio n h e a ri n g . I n the D i s tr i ctC our t , the U ni t ed St at es s ucce s s ful l ys ubs t i tut ed i t s el f as the defe ndanti n the pl ace of the FA A offi ci al s . T he courtul t i m at el ygr ant ed the U ni t ed St at es ’ tw o m ot i ons t o di s m i s s al l cl ai m s agai ns ti t . O n appea l , G ar l and foc us es compl et el yon hi s B i vens cl ai m s and appe ar s t o have abandoned a nyar gum entr egar di ng the di s m i s s al of the FT C A cl ai m s and hi s othercl ai m s . H e di d notaddr es s the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s f irst g ro u n d o f

d ism iss a l in its M a rc h 2 o p in io n b a se d u p o n G a rla n d ’s f a ilu re to9

t i me l ys e r v e th e Un i t e d S t a t e s wi th a s u mmo n s a n d c o mp l a i n ta s r e q u i r e d u n d e rF e d . R. C i v. P. 4( i ) . W e do notfi nd err orw i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al w her e G ar l and fa i l ed t o compl yw i th R ul e 4( i ) i n the s ervi ce of hi s s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntaft erbei ng gi ven extr a t i m e and i ns truct i ons on how t o s erve. E ven i f w e di d notagr ee, how ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yfound G ar l and’ s B i vens cl ai m fai l ed on the mul t i pl e gr ounds enumer at ed i n the M ar ch 2 opi ni on. Fi r s t , the courtl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on on acc ountof the t erm s of a s ett l ementagr eementthatG ar l and and the FA A r eac hed af t erhe a p p e a le d th e re v o c a tio n o f h is p ilo t’ s c e rt if

ic a te u n d e r 4 9 U .S .C . § 4 4 7 0 9 , 4 9 C .F .R . § P821. Second, j ur i s di ct i on w as al s o l acki ng beca us e a di s tr i ctcourtdoes nothave j ur i s di ct i on overa B i vens act i on fordamages agai ns tFA A offi ci al s w hen the exc l us i ve avenue of r evi ew of s uch FA A or der s l i es w i th the C our tof A ppeal s . See G r een v. B ran tl ey , 9 8 1 F . 2 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 9 -20 (11 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). In a d d it ion , G arlan d ’s claim s are o therw ise b arred b ya tw o -y ea r st atute o f li m it ati o n s. S ee N ap ier v. T h irtyo r M o re U n id e n tifie d F e d . A g e n ts, 8 5 5 F .2 d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 8 & n .3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); 4 2 P a . C o n s. S tat. A n n . § 5 5 2 4 (2 ).

D . D ism iss a l o f

O th e r D e f

e n d a n ts G ar l and makes num er ous r efe r ence s t o the ac t i ons of Edw ar d K r i ns ky , the a rb itr a to r w h o h a n d le d th e a rb itr a tio n o f G a rl a n d ’s te rm in a tio n f ro m U S A irw a y s . K r i ns kyw as di s m i s s ed fr om the l aw s ui tbyor derof Sept ember21, 2006, an or derfr om w hi ch G ar l and di d notappea l . H ow ever , G ar l and’ s appea l of the fi nal or deri n thi s act i onSuch i m m uni tyal s o appl i es t o the boar ds s pons or i ng the arbi tr at i on, and s o the 3 di s m i s s al of the U S A i rw ay s Pi l ot s Sy s t em B oar d of A dj us t m entw as ent i r el ypr oper . See C o reyv . N . Y . S tock E x ch . , 6 9 1 F . 2 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 0 9 (6th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). G a rla n d d id n o t id e n tifyo r b rie f c laim s a g a in st th e P e n sio n B e n e f it G u a ra n ty 4 Co rp o r a t i o n ( “ P BGC” ) , Br a d l e yD. Be l t , To m J e rma n , Ev e l yn Be c k e r , o rAp a rn a B. J os hi . G ar l and di d fi l e a r epl ybr i ef, butas PB G C poi nt ed out , thatatt emptcame one b ri e f to o la te . S e e G h a n a v . H o lla n d , 2 2 6 F .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 10 r ai s ed the ent i r e mat t erforappea l , pr ovi ded thatG ar l and ade quat el yi dent i fi ed the i s s ues he s oughtt o appea l i n hi s br i ef. I ti s cl earfr om hi s br i ef thatG ar l and cha l l enges the di s m i s s al of K r i ns kyfr om the l aw s ui t . N everthel es s , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthat all claim s ag ains t K ri n sk yare b arred b ythe d o ctri n e o f a rbitral i m m u n ity . A rbitrators a re p ro tec ted f

ro m liab ili tyf

o r a c ts w h ich a rise o u t o f th e ir a rb itral f

u n c tio n s a n d u n d e r th e ir j ur i s di ct i on dur i ng the cour s e of c ontr actual l yagr eed- upon arbi tr at i on hear i ngs . See W a s yl , I n c . v . F i r s tB o s t o n C o rp . , 8 1 3 F . 2 d 1 5 7 9 , 1 5 8 2 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ; C a h n v . I n t 'l L adi es ' G arm entU ni on, 311 F. 2d 113, 114- 15 ( 3d C i r . 1962) . G ar l and cl ai m s that 3 K r i ns kyw as bi as ed aga i ns thi m and thathe cons pi r ed w i th U S A i rw ay s i n excha nge for paym ent . B utthes e al l egat i ons do notover come t he arbi tr al i m m uni tybeca us e, as G a rla n d a c k n o w led g e s in h is b rie f , the a lleg a tio n s c o n c e rn c o n d u c t th a t w o u ld still fa ll w i thi n the arbi tr al pr oces s . See I nt ’ l U ni on, U ni t ed A ut o. , A er os pace , and A gr i c. Im p lem en t W o rke rs of

A m . v . G reyh o u n d L ines , Inc . , 7 0 1 F . 2 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 5 -86 (6th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). T her e ar e otherpart i es t o thi s act i on agai ns tw hom G ar l and di d notenumer at e any i s s ues on appea l i n hi s openi ng br i ef. W e have acc or ded G ar l and eve ryamountof 411

lenien cythat a p ro se li ti g an t can b e a ff o rde d in h is plead ing s. T h at said, ho w ev er, G ar l and w as s t i l l r equi r ed t o i dent i fyand expl ai n w hati s s ues he i nt ended t o appea l a g a in st th e se a p p e llee s. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 (a )(5 ) a n d (9 ). G a rla n d ’s f a ilu re to i dent i fyand ar gue i s s ues agai ns tthes e appe l l ees i n hi s openi ng br i ef c ons t i tut es a w ai ver o f th e issu es o n ap p ea l. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . P elullo, 39 9 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the or der s of the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng the ap pell ees’ m oti on s t o d i sm i ss.