Odell v. Kalitta Air, LLC

• Docket Number: Case No. 1:22-cv-12290
• Decision Date: 20 June 2023
• Citation: 678 F.Supp.3d 904
• Parties: Robert W. ODELL Jr. et al., Plaintiffs, v. KALITTA AIR, LLC, and Conrad Kalitta in his official capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

678 F.Supp.3d 904

Robert W. ODELL Jr. et al., Plaintiffs, v. KALITTA AIR, LLC, and Conrad Kalitta in his official capacity, Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-12290

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

Signed June 20, 2023

David Austin R. Nimocks, SL Law PLLC, Cedar Hill, TX, John C. Sullivan, Cedar Hill, TX, Elizabeth Ann Brehm, Siri & Glimstad LLP, New York, NY, Walker Moller, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Austin, TX, Allison Lucas, Siri Glimstad, Detrior, MI, for Plaintiffs.

George W. Kelsey, Karen L. Girard, Matthew T. Coleman, Kelsey Law Group, P.C., Belleville, MI, Nicholas C. Bart, Fitzpatrick & Hunt, Pagano, Aubert, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, PARTIALLY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DISCOVERY EXTENSION, AND DISMISSING TWO PLAINTIFFS

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs have objected to the magistrate judge's report recommending partial entry of summary judgment.A hearing is not necessary.E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).As explained below, Plaintiffs' objections will be overruled because the magistrate judge's report shows no clear error.

I.

In this class action, 11 former employees are suing Defendants Kalitta Air and its owner, Conrad Kalitta, under Title VII and the ADA, alleging they(1) refused to grant religious or medical accommodations from a company-wide mandate requiring all employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and then (2) terminated their employment for requesting an accommodation.ECF No. 1.

In December 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under CivilRule 12(b)(1), arguing the claims that the five plaintiffs who are pilots brought under Title VII and the ADA are preempted by the Railway Labor Act,45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., because they require an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement between Kalitta Air and the Air Line Pilots Association that is in effect from March 1, 2021, to March 1, 2025.ECF No. 19.The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge PatriciaT. Morris. ECF No. 32.

After the Parties completed briefing, Judge Morris notified them of her intent to construe the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment because it raised a nonjurisdictional issue and relied on materials outside the complaint.ECF No. 34.Both sides were permitted to supplement their briefing or to seek additional time to conduct discovery for the motion.Id. at PageID.483.Defendants chose to rest on its initial briefing, but the pilot plaintiffs requested that Judge Morris defer consideration pending additional discovery.ECF Nos. 37; 38.Defendants opposed the pilot plaintiffs' motion and asked for a ruling on the motion for summary judgment.ECF No. 41.

On May 26, 2023, Judge Morris issued a report recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be partially granted and that Plaintiffs' motion for additional discovery be denied.ECF No. 43.In sum, Judge Morris concluded all of the pilot plaintiffs' claims—except their retaliation claims—are preempted by the Railway Labor Act as "minor disputes."Id.Judge Morris provided 14 days to object, but only Plaintiffs did so. ECF No. 44.Defendants have therefore forfeited their right to appeal Judge Morris's findings.SeeBerkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530-31(6th Cir.2019)(citingThomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435(1985)).

II.

If the district court will affirm the magistrate judge's report then it may simply identify the parts of the record that it reviewed and state that it found no clear error.E.g., Nettles v. Edgar, No. 1:22-CV-00119, 2022 WL 16551462, at *1(W.D. Mich.Oct. 31, 2022);Odom v. Hill, No. 1:21-CV-00403, 2022 WL 4115425, at *1-2(W.D. Mich.Sept. 9, 2022);Faber v. Smith, No. 1:19-CV-00024, 2019 WL 5684490, at *1(W.D. Mich.Nov. 1, 2019);Ramsey v. Smith, No. 1:13-CV-01210, 2017 WL 4038111, at *1(W.D. Mich.Sept. 13, 2017);cf.United States v. Robinson, 366 F. Supp. 2d 498, 505(E.D. Mich.2005)(applying to same standard to the adoption of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation)(first citing Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807(E.D. Mich.2002); and then citing 12 CHARLES A. WRIGHTETAL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2 (2d ed. 1997)), aff'd, 290 F. App'x 769(6th Cir.2008);e.g., Hereford v. Warren, 486 F. Supp. 2d 659, 660-61(E.D. Mich.2007), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 536 F.3d 523(6th Cir.2008).

III.

This Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Complaint, ECF No. 1, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 19, Plaintiffs' Response, ECF No. 27, Defendants' Reply, ECF No. 30, Plaintiffs' Motion to Conduct Additional Discovery, ECF No. 38, Defendants' Response, ECF No. 41, Plaintiffs' Reply, ECF No. 42, Judge Morris's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 43, Plaintiffs' Objection, ECF No. 44, and all other applicable filings and law.

Having conducted this de novo review, this Court concludes that Judge Morris's factual conclusions are reasonably correct, that she applied to correct law, and that her legal reasoning is sound.That is, there is no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's recommendations (1) to enter summary judgment against Plaintiffs Webber, Hudnutt, Tougas, Galton, and McAllister on Counts I, III, and V; (2) to deny summary judgment against Plaintiffs Webber, Hudnutt, and Tougas on Counts II and IV; (3) to dismiss Plaintiffs Galton and McAllister from the case; or (4) to deny Plaintiff's motion for additional discovery.For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Objections will be overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's recommendations will be adopted.

IV.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections, ECF No. 44, are OVERRULED.

Further, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Morris's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 43, is ADOPTED.

Further, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART.It is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Counts I, III, and V with respect to Plaintiffs Webber, Hudnutt, Tougas, Galton, and McAllister; it is DENIED in all other regards.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Deny or Alternatively to Defer Consideration of Converted Motion, ECF No. 38, is DENIED.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Galton and McAllister are DISMISSED from the above-captioned case.

Further, it is ORDERED that the remaining claims are as follows:

COUNT

REMAINING PLAINTIFFS

I: Title VII,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Religious Discrimination—Failure to Accommodate

Odell; Pingot; Kotula; Jones; Verlander; Robertson

II: Title VII,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Religious Discrimination—Retaliation

Odell; Pingot; Kotula; Verlander; Webber; Hudnutt

III: American With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., Disability Discrimination—Failure to Accommodate

Jones

IV: American With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., Disability Discrimination—Retaliation

Jones; Tougas

V: American With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., Disability Discrimination—Perceived Disability

Odell; Pingot; Kotula; Jones; Verlander; Robertson

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT(ECF No. 19) AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION(ECF No. 38)

Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge

I.RECOMMENDATION

For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND that the CourtGRANTDefendants' motion for summary judgment(ECF No. 19)IN PART and DENYPlaintiffs' motion to conduct additional discovery(ECF No. 38).If adopted, the Court would (1) convert Defendants' motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment;¹(2) enter summary judgment against Plaintiffs Webber, Hudnutt, Tougas, Galton, and McAllister on Counts I, III, and V; (3) deny summary judgment against Plaintiffs Webber, Hudnutt, and Tougas on Counts II and IV; and (4) dismiss Plaintiffs Galton and McAllister from this action.

II.REPORT

A.Introduction

This case is about a group of airline employees who refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 after their employer imposed a company-wide vaccine mandate.Each employee requested either a medical or religious accommodation allowing them to work unvaccinated, and after their employer denied their requests, they filed this putative class action alleging retaliation and unlawful failure to accommodate under Title VII and the ADA.

But the merits of those claims are not at issue today.This motion concerns a narrower, threshold issue: whether the Railway Labor Act("RLA") precludes some of the plaintiffs from even litigating their claims in this Court.The RLA prohibits railway and airline employees from bringing disputes over rights and duties created by collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") directly to federal or state court.Instead, the RLA establishes a mandatory arbitration scheme for these disagreements, known as "minor disputes."

Kalitta Air argues that five of the Plaintiffs here assert claims that constitute minor disputes and therefore must be dismissed so that they may be litigated (if at all) through the RLA's arbitral scheme.That is so, Kalitta explains, not because the five plaintiffs subject to a CBA seek to enforce rights created by that agreement, but because essential elements of their claims would turn on how the Court interprets certain provisions in the CBA.Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has consistently explained that minor disputes are not only those that concern rights created by the CBA, but also those that cannot be decided without interpreting the agreement—even if the dispute is brought under state law or a federal statute.At issue, then, is whether the Court can resolve these Plaintiffs' claims without interpreting the CBA.

B.Background

Kalitta Air is a cargo airline headquartered in Ypsilanti, Michigan.(ECF No. 1, PageID.21, 64, ¶¶ 44-45, 186).In October 2021, Kalitta required all of its employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine by December...