Regner v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., C4-02-463.
Decision Date | 05 November 2002 |
Docket Number | No. C4-02-463.,C4-02-463. |
Parties | Thomas A. REGNER, Appellant, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Respondent. |
Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Susan M. Coler, Sprenger & Lang, PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
Timothy R. Thornton, Scott G. Knudson, Susan E. Ryan, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.
Considered and decided by G. BARRY ANDERSON, Presiding Judge, PETERSON, Judge, and HUDSON, Judge.
Appellant Thomas A. Regner, an airline mechanic employed by respondent Northwest Airlines, Inc., was fired after he filed reports of alleged safety violations with the Federal Aviation Administration. Regner sued under the Whistleblower Act, Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a), contending that he was fired for making the reports. In this appeal from a summary judgment for Northwest, Regner challenges the district court's conclusion that under the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41713, Congress intended to preempt state whistleblower claims when an employee reports a violation or suspected violation of a Federal Aviation Administration safety regulation. We affirm.
Northwest hired Regner as an aircraft mechanic in August 1989 and promoted him to the position of crew chief in 1996. As a crew chief, Regner was responsible for assigning maintenance and repair work to crew members and making sure that the maintenance and repair work and required paperwork were properly completed.
Under federal safety regulations, an aircraft used to carry passengers must have an airworthiness certificate in effect. 49 U.S.C. § 44711(a)(1). When a nonroutine repair was required on a Northwest aircraft, a mechanic or crew chief wrote up a card stating what work was required. Before the aircraft could be returned to service, the repair either had to be completed or, if the repair was not related to airworthiness, it could be deferred. Completion or deferral of a repair was indicated on the card.
Federal aviation regulations also require aircraft mechanics to report safety violations to the Federal Aviation Administration. On five occasions between March and April 1998, Regner reported possible safety violations by Northwest to the Federal Aviation Administration. A factual dispute exists regarding whether Regner made the reports in good faith or as part of an orchestrated work slowdown. Northwest discharged Regner from employment on May 5, 1998, and Regner brought this action claiming that he was fired for reporting the safety violations. The district court concluded that Regner's claim is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) and granted summary judgment for Northwest.
Is Regner's whistleblower claim brought under Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a) preempted by the ADA?
"Whether a claim is preempted is a question of congressional intent that is `at bottom' a legal question of statutory construction." Leonard v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 605 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn.App.2000). Statutory construction is subject to de novo review. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Comm'n v. County of Hennepin, 561 N.W.2d 513, 515 (Minn.1997).
Botz v. Omni Air Int'l, 286 F.3d 488, 492-93 (8th Cir.2002) (quotations and citations omitted).
The FAA [Federal Aviation Act] was passed by Congress for the purpose of centralizing in a single authority the power to frame rules for the safe and efficient use of the nation's airspace. To that end, Congress set out a legal duty, enforceable by the Secretary of Transportation, that interstate air carriers perform their services "with the highest possible degree of safety * * *."
Botz v. Omni Air Int'l, 134 F.Supp.2d 1042, 1047 (D.Minn.2001) (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 44701(d)(1)(A)) (other quotation omitted), aff'd, 286 F.3d 488 (8th Cir.2002). The FAA was amended by the ADA in 1978, 49 U.S.C. 41713 (1995).
The enactment [of the ADA] was motivated by congressional belief that maximum reliance on competitive market forces would best further efficiency, innovation, and low prices as well as variety and quality of air transportation services.
Leonard, 605 N.W.2d at 429 (quotation omitted).
The ADA contains the following preemption provision:
[A] State * * * may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier * * *.
49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1); see Leonard, 605 N.W.2d at 429
(. )
The United States Supreme Court has set forth a two-part test for determining whether the ADA preempts a state claim. Leonard, 605 N.W.2d at 429 (citing American Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 226, 115 S.Ct. 817, 823, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995); Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 2037, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992)). "To be preempted, the claim must (1) relate to prices, routes, or services, and (2) constitute an enactment or enforcement of state law." Id. (citing Wolens, 513 U.S. at 226, 115 S.Ct. at 823). Because this lawsuit arises under the Whistleblower Act, the second prong is satisfied. See id. at 431 ( ). Thus, the question is whether this lawsuit relates to prices, routes, or services.
The Minnesota Whistleblower Act states:
Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1 (Supp.1997).
In Botz, the federal district court summarized the Supreme Court's decisions in Wolens and Morales as follows:
Botz, 134 F.Supp.2d at 1045-46.
In Botz, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, based on the plain language of the ADA's preemption provision and on Morales and Wolens, held that the ADA preempted a flight attendant's claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Botz v. Omni Air Intern., 286 F.3d 488, 498 (8th Cir.2002). The flight attendant was terminated after she refused to accept an assignment that she believed violated regulations governing the maximum hours a flight attendant can fly in a specified time period. Botz, 286 F.3d at 490. The Eighth Circuit court explained:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Venegas v. Global Aircraft Serv., Inc.
...of the aircraft. Grounding aircraft directly affected FOC's point-to-point transportation services."); Regner v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 652 N.W.2d 557, 563 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (relying on Botz in holding that the ADA preempts a whistleblower claim). Unlike the cases cited above, transportati......
- State v. Rezac
-
Tucker v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., Inc., 02-23555-CIV.
...Air Int'l, 286 F.3d 488, 491 (8th Cir.2002); Marlow v. AMR Services Corp., 870 F.Supp. 295, 298 (D.Haw. 1994); Regner v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 652 N.W.2d 557 (Minn.App.2002). In Botz, an airline flight attendant was fired after refusing a flight assignment because she believed it violat......
-
Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc.
...First, Eighth Circuit decisions on matters of state law are merely persuasive and are not precedential. Regner v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 652 N.W.2d 557, 563 (Minn.App.2002). And, this reading of Snyder has not been followed by any Minnesota appellate decision.More importantly, respondent's rel......