Love v. Delta Air Lines, No. 02-10223.

• Decision Date: 31 October 2002
• Docket Number: No. 02-10223.
• Citation: 310 F.3d 1347
• Parties: Cynthia LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELTA AIR LINES, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1347

310 F.3d 1347

Cynthia LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELTA AIR LINES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-10223.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

October 31, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Letta Dillard Gorman, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James W. Garrett, Jr., Robert A. Huffaker, Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, AL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Sheila A. Bedi, IPR/Georgetown University of Law Center, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Paralyzed Veterans of America.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Before DUBINA, MARCUS and GOODWIN,^* Circuit Judges.

MARCUS, Circuit Judge:

The Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (the "ACAA"), 100 Stat. 1080, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 41705, prohibits air carriers from discriminating against disabled individuals. This interlocutory appeal presents a question of first impression in this circuit: Does the ACAA create by implication a private right of action in a federal district court for a disabled individual alleging violations of its provisions? The district court answered this question in the affirmative. However, after careful review of the ACAA's text and structure, we can discern no congressional intent to create such a private right of action. Accordingly, we reverse.

I.

Love was stricken with polio at the age of three and is paralyzed. She has the ability to neither stand nor walk, and accordingly uses a wheelchair.

The present dispute arises from events occurring before and during a Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") flight from Montgomery, Alabama to Colorado Springs, Colorado on May 26, 1998. While making reservations prior to the flight, Love notified the airline of her "special needs." During the flight, Love became ill and had to be carried to the restroom by her son. Love asserts that Delta failed to provide an accessible "call button" with which she could page a flight attendant; that Delta failed to provide an aisle chair to assist her in accessing the restroom facilities; that the restroom was too small to accommodate her; that she was not afforded privacy in the restroom; and that Delta failed to provide adequately trained flight personnel.

Love filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the ACAA, 49 U.S.C. § 41705.¹ In her complaint, Love sought a declaration that Delta had engaged in discrimination by not ensuring that its facilities and services were accessible to disabled persons; a permanent injunction requiring Delta to restructure its facilities and services, train its employees to provide disabled individuals equal access to those facilities and services, and avoid future acts of disability-based discrimination; and monetary relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that Love could not maintain a claim under the ADA because the relevant portion of that Act expressly excludes aircraft from its coverage. See Love v. Delta Air Lines, 179 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1316 (M.D.Ala.2001). The district court also found that the ACAA implies a private right of action, see id. at 1321, but determined that the ACAA permits private litigants only injunctive and declaratory relief. See id. at 1326. The district court granted summary judgment to Delta on Love's claims concerning the call button and the size and privacy of the on-board restroom, see id. at 1330-31, but concluded that genuine issues of material fact precluded the entry of summary judgment on Love's claims regarding the on-board aisle chair and the adequacy of the training received by Delta's flight personnel. See id. at 1329-30.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), we granted Love's petition to interlocutorily appeal two questions: (1) Does the ACAA imply a private cause of action?; and, if so, (2) What remedies are available to private litigants? Because we answer the first question in the negative, we do not reach the second one.

II.

The issue of whether a statute creates by implication a private right of action is a "question of statutory construction," Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 688, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1953, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which we review de novo. See Pharmaceutical Research and Mfrs. of Am. v. Meadows, 304 F.3d 1197, 1199 (11th Cir.2002). As we discussed extensively in Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 309 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir.2002), our present analysis of this issue in the context of the ACAA is informed most significantly by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, which distills and clarifies the approach we are obliged to follow. See 532 U.S. 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001).

Until its decision in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), the Supreme Court implied a private right of action from a statute if it concluded that doing so would advance what it perceived to be the congressional purpose in enacting the statute. See, e.g., J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 433, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 1560, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964) ("[I]t is the duty of the courts to be alert to provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective the congressional purpose."). In Cort, however, the Court lent a more discernible shape to this inquiry, as it articulated four factors that must be considered before a private right of action may be implied:

First, is the plaintiff "one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted," — that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? And finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law?

422 U.S. at 78, 95 S.Ct. at 2088 (quoting Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 39, 36 S.Ct. 482, 484, 60 L.Ed. 874 (1916)) (additional citations omitted).

Since the late 1970s, the Supreme Court has gradually receded from its reliance on three of these four factors focusing exclusively on legislative intent to create a private right of action as the touchstone of its analysis.² Sandoval is the culmination of this trend, announcing that:

Like substantive federal law itself, private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress. The judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy. Statutory intent on this latter point is determinative. Without it, a cause of action does not exist and courts may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter, or how compatible with the statute. Raising up causes of action where a statute has not created them may be a proper function for common-law courts, but not for federal tribunals.

532 U.S. at 286-87, 121 S.Ct. at 1519-1520 (citations and internal quotations omitted, emphasis added); see also Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 2276, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002) (The inquiry "simply require[s] a determination as to whether or not Congress intended to confer individual rights upon a class of beneficiaries.") (emphasis added). The other three Cort factors remain relevant only insofar as they provide evidence of whether Congress intended to create a private cause of action.

Sandoval also clearly delimits the sources that are relevant to our search for legislative intent. First and foremost, we look to the statutory text for "`rights-creating' language." Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 288, 121 S.Ct. at 1521 (citation omitted); see also Gonzaga Univ., 122 S.Ct. at 2276 n. 3 ("Where a statute does not include this sort of explicit `right- or duty-creating language' we rarely impute to Congress an intent to create a private right of action."); Cannon, 441 U.S. at 690 n. 13, 99 S.Ct. at 1954 n. 13 ("Not surprisingly, the right- or duty-creating language of the statute has generally been the most accurate indicator of the propriety of implication of a cause of action."). "Rights-creating language" is language "explicitly confer[ing] a right directly on a class of persons that include[s] the plaintiff in [a] case," Cannon, 441 U.S. at 690 n. 13, 99 S.Ct. at 1954 n. 13, or language identifying "the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted." Rigsby, 241 U.S. at 39, 36 S.Ct. at 484, 60 L.Ed. 874 (1916), quoted in Cannon, 441 U.S. at 688 n. 9, 99 S.Ct. at 1953 n. 9. By contrast, "statutory language customarily found in criminal statutes ... and other laws enacted for the protection of the general public," or a statute written "simply as a ban on discriminatory conduct by recipients of federal funds," provides "far less reason to infer a private remedy in favor of individual persons." Cannon, 441 U.S. at 690-93, 99 S.Ct. at 1954-55; see also Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 289, 121 S.Ct. at 1521 ("Statutes that focus on the person regulated rather than the individuals protected create `no implication of an intent to confer rights on a particular class of persons.'") (quoting California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 294, 101 S.Ct. 1775, 1779, 68 L.Ed.2d 101 (1981)).

Second, we examine the statutory structure within which the provision in question is embedded. If that statutory structure provides a discernible enforcement mechanism, Sandoval teaches that we ought not imply a private right of action because "[t]he express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others." San...