Belgard v. United Airlines, No. 91CA0646
| Docket Nº | No. 91CA0646 |
| Citation | 857 P.2d 467 |
| Case Date | December 17, 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Page 467
496, 3 NDLR P 213
Cross-Appellees,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee
and Cross-Appellant.
Div. III.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1993.
Certiorari Denied Aug. 23, 1993.
Page 468
Lynn L. Palma, Denver, Schaden, Lampert & Lampert, Brian J. Lampert, Bruce A. Lampert, Patricia M. Jarzobski, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants and cross-appellees.
Rothgerber, Appel, Powers & Johnson, Michael D. Nosler, Samuel M. Ventola, Denver, for defendant-appellee and cross-appellant.
Opinion by Judge CRISWELL.
Plaintiffs, Jamie Belgard and Janet Squire, are employees of the defendant, United Air Lines, Inc. They instituted this action against United and sought to represent a class of individuals who were allegedly similarly situated, claiming that they were denied employment as pilots with United because they had undergone surgery that was designed to alleviate the effects of myopia. They asserted that this denial of employment constituted discrimination based on a perceived physical handicap in violation of § 24-34-402(1)(a), C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A). However, the trial court, concluding that plaintiffs' claims were pre-empted by federal statutes regulating the aviation industry, entered summary judgment dismissing those claims. Plaintiffs appeal from that judgment, and we affirm.
Section 24-34-402(1)(a) declares that an employer's refusal to promote an otherwise
Page 469
qualified person "because of a handicap," constitutes an unlawful employment practice, unless there is "no reasonable accommodation" that can be made with regard to such handicap. Other statutes create the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, § 24-34-303, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A), and establish procedures for the filing of charges of discrimination with this commission and for their administrative determination. Sections 24-34-306 and 24-34-307, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A). In addition, the commission is delegated the authority to adopt rules and regulations to implement the provisions of § 24-34-402(1)(a). Section 24-34-305, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10).In accordance with this delegation of authority, the commission has promulgated Civil Rights Commission Rule 60.2(E), 3 Code Colo.Reg. 708-1, which prohibits an employer from making pre-employment inquiries respecting the "nature or severity of a physical handicap," although inquiries limited to a job applicant's "ability to perform job-related functions" are permissible.
Plaintiffs' complaint contained two claims for relief. The first, based upon the provisions of § 24-34-402(1)(a) itself, asserted that United had denied each of them promotion to the position of flight officer solely because they had undergone radial keratotomy surgery, designed to alleviate the effects of myopia. They asserted that such surgery did not render them incapable of performing the duties of such position and affirmatively asserted that each of them possessed a proper airman's certificate evidencing their physical qualifications to perform the necessary job functions.
In their second claim, plaintiffs relied upon Rule 60.2(E). They alleged that United made it a practice to inquire of prospective job applicants respecting their prior physical history of diseases and injuries, as well as the prior medical history of their parents and other relatives. The purpose of such information, according to plaintiffs, was to allow United to predict the future health of a prospective employee.
I.
In asserting that plaintiffs' state law claims have been pre-empted, both expressly and impliedly, by the provisions of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C.App. § 1301, et seq. (1992), United relies both upon the comprehensiveness with which this federal legislation has occupied the field of aviation and upon the specific provisions of 49 U.S.C.App. § 1305 (1992). This latter statute says that:
[N]o state or political subdivision thereof ... shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes or services of any air carrier.... (emphasis supplied)
We agree that this federal legislation prevents the enforcement against airlines of Colorado's handicap discrimination law.
The concept that federal enactments may prohibit the enforcement of state laws is grounded upon the constitutional provision that the laws of the United States, made pursuant to the national constitution, "shall be the supreme law of the land." U.S. Const. art. VI.
Hence, any state law that conflicts with federal legislation, either directly or because its enforcement would stand as a barrier to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, cannot be enforced. Hines...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Air Transport v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 97-1763 CW.
...in one of the cases, the second decision has been reversed, and the reasoning in the third is unpersuasive. In Belgard v. United Airlines, 857 P.2d 467 (Colo.App. 1992), a Colorado appellate court reasoned that a State nondiscrimination law related to service because "the quality of th......
-
Marriage of McElroy, In re, No. 94CA0957
...seek early retirement. See Elzie v. Aspin, supra. Hence, we perceive no inference of an intent to preempt. See Belgard v. United Airlines, 857 P.2d 467 In the two reported appellate decisions we have found that have considered the preemption issue in the context of SSB and VSI benefits, bot......
-
Wellons v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., No. 97-1242
...to achieve in the Airline Deregulation Act. Among the cases on which Northwest relies in this connection is Belgard v. United Airlines, 857 P.2d 467, 471 (Colo.App.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1117, 114 S.Ct. 1066, 127 L.Ed.2d 386 (1994). Belgard was a suit by airline employees who had bee......
-
LaRosa v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. CIV. A. 10428-WGY.
...any law that is connected with or has reference to an airline's rates, routes or services is preempted. See Belgard v. United Airlines, 857 P.2d 467, 470 Two federal circuit courts have concluded that state-law employment discrimination claims are not preempted by the ADA. In Aloha Islandai......
-
Air Transport v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 97-1763 CW.
...in one of the cases, the second decision has been reversed, and the reasoning in the third is unpersuasive. In Belgard v. United Airlines, 857 P.2d 467 (Colo.App. 1992), a Colorado appellate court reasoned that a State nondiscrimination law related to service because "the quality of the ser......
-
Marriage of McElroy, In re, No. 94CA0957
...seek early retirement. See Elzie v. Aspin, supra. Hence, we perceive no inference of an intent to preempt. See Belgard v. United Airlines, 857 P.2d 467 In the two reported appellate decisions we have found that have considered the preemption issue in the context of SSB and VSI benefits, bot......
-
Wellons v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., No. 97-1242
...to achieve in the Airline Deregulation Act. Among the cases on which Northwest relies in this connection is Belgard v. United Airlines, 857 P.2d 467, 471 (Colo.App.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1117, 114 S.Ct. 1066, 127 L.Ed.2d 386 (1994). Belgard was a suit by airline employees who had bee......
-
LaRosa v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. CIV. A. 10428-WGY.
...any law that is connected with or has reference to an airline's rates, routes or services is preempted. See Belgard v. United Airlines, 857 P.2d 467, 470 Two federal circuit courts have concluded that state-law employment discrimination claims are not preempted by the ADA. In Aloha Islandai......