Norman v. Tradewinds Airlines, INC., 1:02CV918 (M.D.N.C. 6/13/2003)
| Decision Date | 13 June 2003 |
| Docket Number | 1:02CV918. |
| Parties | JOSEPH S. NORMAN, Plaintiff, v. TRADEWINDS AIRLINES, INC. Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
This matter comes before the court on Norman's motion [Doc. #23] for leave to amend complaint. TradeWinds has responded in opposition to the amendment, alleging that the amendment would be futile because it would, like the previous complaint, be subject to dismissal. The court agrees.
Although Rule 15 states that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires," leave to amend is not automatic and is within the sound discretion of the court. Foman v. Davis. 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (citing FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)). If a pleading, as amended, could not survive a motion to dismiss, the amendment should be denied as futile. Perkins v. United States. 55 F.3d 910, 917 (4th Cir. 1995). Because the court finds, as discussed below, that Norman's proposed complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the amendment should be denied as futile.
Norman's proposed Second Amended Complaint [hereinafter "proposed complaint"] follows the same outline of his previous complaint, and includes many identical factual allegations.1 As was noted in his previous complaint, Norman is a citizen of Florida, and TradeWinds is a corporation with its headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina. (Proposed Compl., ¶ 1). In September 2000, TradeWinds interviewed Norman in Florida for a pilot position. (Id, ¶ 3). During the interview process, Norman was given a copy of the TradeWinds "Flight Deck Crew Policy Handbook" ["Handbook"] and an attached Memorandum dated April 25, 2000 [hereinafter "April 2000 Memorandum" or "attached Memorandum"]. (Id., ¶¶ 3-4; 16). The April 2000 Memorandum states, in part:
To: All Cockpit Crewmembers. . . .
This handbook will be the basis on which a flight deck crewmember's day-to-day interaction with the company will be managed
The company . . . appreciates the dynamic nature of its current situation. Especially in light of the negative effects its prior financial performance has had on its overall financial strength, [sic] The policies in this initial copy of the handbook may be revised from time to time as dictated by the operational needs of the company.
(Ex.1).
As was noted in the previous complaint, the Handbook itself outlines, inter alia, an "Off-Day" pay policy (Ex. 1, Handbook, p.4); a "Hot Reserve" pay credit policy for each full day of "Hot Reserve Duty" (id, p.5); a priority policy for awarding "Open Time" (id, p.5); and a seniority policy for assigning captain positions (Proposed Compl., ¶ 19). The Handbook also outlines "Standby Pay" and other upgrading and seniority policies or procedures. (Ex. 1, Handbook, p. 10). In addition, the Handbook includes a "Progressive Discipline Policy" which provides guidelines under which a Chief Pilot or Director will take disciplinary action "if a crewmember commits an offense warranting disciplinary action." (id, p. 14). These guidelines provide for a three-step warning process for most offenses, followed by suspension or termination. (Id.). "In cases of major offenses," however, "disciplinary action may start at any level of this progressive discipline program." (id).
New to the proposed complaint is a description of certain oral representations made by TradeWinds during the interview process. In particular, Norman alleges that "TradeWinds never disclosed, during the employment process, any hint of not being bound by the terms and conditions of crewmember employment described in the Memorandum and Handbook." (Proposed Compl., ¶ 27). "In fact," he writes, "just the opposite occurred, TradeWinds represented, orally, the Memorandum and Handbook described the terms and conditions of employment for employees." (14, (syntax as in original)). TradeWinds explained during the interview process that the prospective crewmember should read the Handbook "so the crewmember would have a clear understanding as to how the work environment at TradeWinds would be, questions could be asked for clarification, and there would be no doubts later on should the prospective crewmember be hired." (Id., ¶ 3). TradeWinds1 use of the Handbook, the April 2000 Memorandum, and these oral representations, created "the appearance of a favorable employment package to recruit pilots." (Id., ¶ 29).
The proposed complaint provides a few further details regarding the place and time of the employment steps. In a March 20, 2001, letter addressed to Norman's home address in Florida, TradeWinds congratulated Norman on being selected to become a TradeWinds Airlines flight crewmember, and notified him that he needed to be in Greensboro, North Carolina, on March 26, 2001, to commence a training program. (Proposed Compl., Ex. 2). Norman states that he "was hired by TradeWinds and began pilot training on or about March 26, 200[1]."2 (Proposed Compl., ¶ 6). By Norman's own admission, no oral or written statement in any document received by Norman included "a clause for employment for a definite period of time." (Id., ¶ 5)
After Norman began employment with TradeWinds, the company issued a Memorandum on April 10, 2001, [hereinafter "UTC Memorandum"], that revised the discipline procedures for crewmembers who are considered "unable to be contacted (UTC)." (Id, ¶ 16). Specifically, the UTC Memorandum indicates that when the TradeWinds scheduling department is "Unable to Contact (UTC)" a crewmember, sanctions will occur. (Proposed Compl., Ex. 3). One UTC results, inter alia, in a write up; a second UTC results in a meeting with the Chief Pilot in Greensboro, North Carolina; and, a third UTC results in a further meeting with the Chief Pilot in Greensboro and possible discontinuation of employment. (Ex. 3, p. 2).
As the previous complaint also provided, while employed with TradeWinds, Norman was required to travel from his home in Florida to his base of operations in Dayton, Ohio, each time he began a work shift. (Proposed Compl., ¶ 7). This travel time to reach the point of origination for the flights assigned was uncompensated. (Id.). During the course of Norman's employment, TradeWinds did not apply the "Hot Reserve," or "Open Time," policy outlined in the Handbook. (id, ¶¶ 17-18). Additionally, TradeWinds "unilaterally instituted a system of `V-T-O days' in which a crewmember was expected to be in a `standby' status," without compensation, and without guidelines as to required pilot availability on these days, (Id, ¶ 17). TradeWinds also failed to follow other upgrading and seniority procedures outlined in the Memoranda and Handbook, (id., ¶ 19).
As noted in the previous complaint, Norman's employment was terminated by a letter, dated August 15, 2002. (First Am. Compl., ¶ 7, Ex.3). The termination letter, from Bruce Clamp, Chief Pilot, stated, in part,
This letter is to serve you notice that in response to your failure to be available for an assignment, therefore missing a trip sequence, you are hereby terminated. . . .
It was very apparent in our conversation that you purposefully and willfully avoided contact with the Crew Scheduling Department. Numerous calls had been placed to your home with messages left, and emails had also been sent. . . .
Your attitude toward your responsibility to the schedule that was duly awarded to you in the bidding process is unacceptable and falls well short of what we expect and need from our employees [W]e do not have the luxury of being able to risk the possibility of canceling or delaying a flight because of an adverse attitude of one of our employees.
(Id.). In his proposed complaint, Norman provides several additional details regarding the events leading up to his termination. Norman talked with Chief Pilot Clamp during the evening of August 13, 2002, about an "upgrade to Captain that Norman had been promised for many months." (Proposed Compl., ¶ 11). The issue of availability during the V-T-0 days was also discussed at that time, and Norman thought that the issue was resolved, (id). During the afternoon of August 14, Norman was called by TradeWinds crew scheduling personnel and alerted for a flight from Dayton, Ohio, early in the morning of August 16, 2002. (id, ¶ 12). "Norman left his home in Florida early in the morning of August 15, 2002, and proceeded to Dayton, Ohio." (Id, ¶ 13). Then, after his arrival at the crew hotel in Dayton, "Norman made statements advocating the need for organized labor on the TradeWinds property." (id, ¶ 14). He "was terminated from employment at TradeWinds approximately one and a half hours later," on August 15, 2002. (id). Norman was dismissed without having first received three recorded infractions, in the manner described in the Handbook "Progressive Discipline Policy," or in the manner described in the UTC Memorandum, (id, ¶¶ 16 & 20).
As he alleged in his previous complaint, Norman claims (in Count One of his proposed complaint) that the Handbook and April 2000 Memorandum stated the "promises, conditions and rules" of his employment. (id., ¶ 16). He now broadens his contract claim, however, stating "the April 2000 Memorandum and the Handbook created a written contractual agreement that was incorporated into the oral contract initiated during the initial interview process." (id.) (emphasis indicating new material). He alleges that TradeWinds' failure to follow the procedures in the Handbook, the April 2000 Memorandum, and the UTC Memorandum "represents a breach of the employment agreement by Defendant." (Id, ¶¶ 16, 20 & 21).
As in his previous complaint, Norman also alleges (in Count Two of his proposed complaint) that, "by using the Handbook and Memorandum as promises of the details of the employment opportunity offered," TradeWinds "fraudulently induced" Norman to enter into employment with the company. (Id,...
To continue reading
Request your trial