Kennedy v. Am. Airlines Inc., Civil Action No. 15-8058 (JBS/KMW)

• Decision Date: 20 July 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 15-8058 (JBS/KMW)
• Citation: 195 F.Supp.3d 646
• Parties: William Henry KENNEDY, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES INC., Envoy Airlines Inc., and John Doe 1-10, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

195 F.Supp.3d 646

William Henry KENNEDY, Plaintiff,

v.AMERICAN AIRLINES INC., Envoy Airlines Inc., and John Doe 1-10, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-8058 (JBS/KMW)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Signed July 20, 2016

William Henry Kennedy, 2834 Atlantic Ave, Apt. 815, Atlantic City, NJ 08401, pro se.

David Black, Esq., SCHOEMAN UPDIKE & KAUFMAN LLP, 551 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10176, Daniel E. Farrington, Esq., THE FARRINGTON LAW FIRM, LLC, 7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220W, Bethesda, MD 20814, Attorney for Defendants.

OPINION

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In this employment action, pro se Plaintiff, William Henry Kennedy (hereinafter, "Plaintiff"), generally alleges that Defendants Envoy Airlines, Inc.¹ (hereinafter, "Envoy"), American Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter, "American Airlines" and collectively, "Defendants"), and John Doe 1-10 unlawfully terminated his employment after he failed an "unreliable" on-the-job breathalyzer test, and seeks damages for the pain and suffering he purportedly endured through Defendants' rehabilitation process and unemployment proceedings. (See generally Am. Compl.)

Plaintiff's 14-count Second Amended Complaint alleges, in particular, that Defendants: (1) terminated his employment in breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter, "CBA") between Envoy and Plaintiff's Union (hereinafter, "Counts I-III & XIII"); (2) defamed him through the alleged release of his "confidential" medical information (hereinafter, "Count IV"); (3) committed fraud and interfered with his contractual and business relationships by "overriding" his COBRA health insurance coverage (hereinafter, "Counts V, VI, VIII, IX, & XIII"); (4) subjected him to emotional distress (hereinafter, "Counts VII, X, & XII"); (5) discriminated against him on account of his race and association with a disabled person (hereinafter, "Count XI"); and (6) infringed upon his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (hereinafter, "Count XIV").² (See id. at ¶¶ 45-112.)

Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, in its entirety, on the grounds that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 181, preempts Plaintiff's CBA-related claims, and because his allegations otherwise fail to meet the specificity and particularity requirements for federal pleadings. (See generally Defs.' Br. at 4-22.) Plaintiff, for his part, provides little, if any, response to Defendants' substantive challenges to the viability of his claims (see generally Pl.'s Opp'n), and instead reiterates his lengthy recitation of the underlying events.³ (See generally Pl.'s Opp'n.)

For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual and Procedural Background⁴

Beginning in 2001, Plaintiff worked as a flight attendant for Envoy Airlines. (See Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 10-11.) At 5:15 A.M. on March 3, 2014, Plaintiff reported to work un-showered, unshaven, wearing dirty clothes, and smelling faintly of alcohol. (See id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) As a result, at approximately 8:30 A.M., Envoy performed a "reasonable suspicion" breathalyzer test, which reported a blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, of. 135. (See id. at ¶¶ 22, 25.) At 9:34 A.M., Envoy then performed a confirmation test, which revealed a BAC of. 083. (See id. at ¶ 25.) Based upon these over-the-legal-limit readings, Envoy immediately suspended Plaintiff, and officially (and retroactively) terminated his employment on March 20, 2014.⁵ (See id. at ¶ 25; see also Ex. F to Am. Compl.)

Despite this termination, Envoy's CBA with Plaintiff's union made a flight attendant " ‘charged with a first drug or alcohol testing violation ... eligible for conditional reinstatement upon successfully completing of [the Employee Assistance Program's, or EAP's,] designated rehabilitation program.’ " (Am. Compl. at ¶ 51 (citation omitted).) Plaintiff, in turn, met with Envoy's Substance Abuse Professional/Employee Assistance Program (hereinafter, "SAP" or "EAP") Manager, Ellyn Kravette, who recommended a 28-day in-patient rehabilitation program, and provided him with a referral to two designated facilities. (See id. at ¶¶ 53-55, 57; see also Ex. V. to Am. Compl.) On April 21, 2014, Plaintiff admitted himself to the Marworth Rehabilitation Center in Pennsylvania. (See Am. Compl. at ¶ 61.) Two days later, however, Marworth administratively terminated Plaintiff's admission, because of his disagreement "with a diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence," and because his disruptive "behavior became increasingly toxic to the therapeutic environment." (Ex. U to Am. Compl.) As a result, the Marworth Counselor and Associate Medical Director found themselves "unable to treat" Plaintiff, despite concluding that he suffered from "difficulties with alcohol." (Id. at 3.) Envoy, in turn, found Plaintiff ineligible for reinstatement, because he failed to successfully complete EAP's 28-day treatment plan. (See Am. Compl. at ¶ 74.)

In the aftermath of his discharge, Plaintiff appealed the denial of his unemployment benefits by challenging the calibration of the breathalyzer instrument. (See Am. Compl. at ¶ 35.) Following a lengthy administrative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge, Alison Ferrara (hereinafter, the "ALJ"), overturned the unemployment denial, based upon concerns over "the accuracy" of the breathalyzer machine,⁶ and because the breathalyzer technician's testimony proved, by itself, "insufficient to establish" Plaintiff's intoxication. (Ex. M to Am. Compl. at 5-6.) As a result, the ALJ found Plaintiff entitled to unemployment benefits.⁷ (Id. at 7.)

Following the unemployment proceedings, Plaintiff filed this litigation,⁸ and the pending dismissal motion followed.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Standard of Review Applicable to Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) Preemption Challenges

Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) therefore enables a party, as here, to move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Under Rule 12(b)(1), the court's jurisdiction may be challenged either facially (based on the legal sufficiency of the claim) or factually (based on the sufficiency of a jurisdictional fact). Gould Elecs. v. U.S., 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir.2000) ; see also A.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ., 90 F.Supp.3d 326, 334 (D.N.J.2015) (explaining the same distinction). In considering a factual attack, as here, the Court need not cabin its inquiry to allegations in the complaint. Rather, the Court may "consider affidavits, depositions, and testimony to resolve factual issues bearing on jurisdiction." Gotha v. U.S., 115 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir.1997) ; see also Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891–92 (3d Cir.1977).

B. Standard of Review Applicable to Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Plausibility Challenges

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court must " ‘accept all factual allegations as true, construe the Complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the Complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.’ " Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679 F.3d 116, 120 (3d Cir.2012) (citations omitted).

In applying this standard to pro se pleadings and other submissions, as here, the Court must liberally construe the well-pleaded allegations, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the pro se litigant. Higgs, 655 F.3d at 339 (3d Cir.2011) ; Capogrosso, 588 F.3d at 184. Despite this liberality, however, a pro se complaint must still"contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true," to " ‘state a [plausible] claim to relief.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ); Marley v. Donahue, 133 F.Supp.3d 706, 714 (D.N.J.2015) (explaining the same concept).

IV. DISCUSSION

As stated above, Plaintiff's Complaint contains a bevy of claims resulting from his termination from Envoy. For the reasons that follow, Counts I, II, III, XIII, and XIV will be dismissed with prejudice, and Counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII will be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

A. Counts I, II, III, and XIII: The Railway Labor Act Preempts Plaintiff's CBA-Related Claims

In Counts I, II, III, and XIII, Plaintiff generally alleges that his termination violated the CBA between Envoy and his union. (See generally Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 45-76, 106.) More specifically, Plaintiff claims that Envoy violated the CBA by terminating him without cause (Count I), failing to reinstate him (Count II), and by not offering him an alternative to in-patient alcohol treatment (Counts III & XIII).⁹ Defendants argue, in turn, that the RLA preempts the CBA-oriented aspects of Plaintiff's Complaint, and takes the view that these claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Defs.' Br. at 5-7, 11, 14.)

In passing the RLA, Congress sought to "minimize interruptions in national transportation," by establishing an "effective [and mandatory] mechanism for resolving disputes between employers, unions and employees."¹⁰ Mersmann v. Cont'l Airlines, 335 F.Supp.2d 544, 550 (D.N.J.2004) ; see also See Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252, 114 S.Ct. 2239, 129 L.Ed.2d 203 (1994). More specifically, the RLA created an arbitration scheme "to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application" of labor agreements. 45 U.S.C. § 151a ; see also Union Pac. R.R. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89, 94, 99 S.Ct. 399, 58 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978) (explaining the same purpose).

The RLA defines labor...