Thompson v. U.S. Airways, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 June 2010
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 09-cv-870
• Parties: Gerald THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. US AIRWAYS, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

717 F.Supp.2d 468

Gerald THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.US AIRWAYS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 09-cv-870.

United States District Court,

E.D. Pennsylvania.

June 15, 2010.

Andrew J. Sciolla, Derek T. Braslow, Pogust Braslow & Millrood LLC, Conshohocken, PA, Baharak Dejban, Bevin E. Allen, Khorrami Pollard & Abir, Los Angeles, CA, Mikel D. Jones, The Mikel Jones Law Firm, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Anthony B. Haller, Elaine D. Solomon, Rose E. Isard, Blank Rome LLP, Jennifer Hale Eagland, Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Ellen C. Kearns, Constangy Brooks & Smith LLP, Jeffrey M. Rosin, Foley Lardner LLP, Boston, MA, C. Eric Stevens, Miller & Martin LLP, Nashville, TN, Paulette Brown, Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, Madison, NJ, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

PRATTER, District Judge.

Introduction

Plaintiffs here are a purported class of individuals who have worked as skycaps at U.S. Airways terminals in Pennsylvania. Skycaps are the aviation equivalent of the railroad redcaps: porters who assist passengers checking luggage at the entrance of the terminal. The Plaintiffs in this case are or have been employed by Prime Flight Aviation Services ("Prime Flight"), which is one of the two defendants in this case. US Airways is the other.

In 2005, U.S. Airways began charging its passengers a $2 fee, collected by skycaps,for each bag checked at curbside. The Plaintiffs claim that this fee has "dramatically" reduced the amount of money that travelers give skycaps in tips. On February 3, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a four-count Complaint against U.S. Airways and Prime Flight, alleging that the Defendants' conduct had violated two state statutes, as well as principles of Pennsylvania common law.¹ Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that skycaps' income derives primarily from tips, and that since the initiation of the fee, many skycaps employed by Defendants have been making less than minimum wage. In addition, the Plaintiffs assert that skycaps often were forced to work through meal breaks and that many did not receive overtime compensation.

On March 26, 2009, U.S. Airways filed a Motion to Dismiss each of the four counts against it (Docket No. 20). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion as to Counts I, II and IV of the Complaint, and will grant the Motion as to Count III.

Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The Plaintiffs are citizens of Pennsylvania; US Airways is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Tempe, Arizona; and Prime Flight is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.

Factual and Procedural Background

For the purposes of this Motion to Dismiss, facts alleged in the Complaint are considered to be true. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). On that basis, the facts are as follows:

Plaintiffs allege that skycaps have traditionally received "most" of their compensation in the form of tips provided by airline passengers (Complaint, ¶ 2). When U.S. Airways initiated its $2-per-bag curbside check-in fee in 2005, "skycaps' compensation ... decreased dramatically, as few passengers [were] willing to pay additional tips on top of this charge" ( id. at ¶ 3). Plaintiffs assert that "[m]any passengers believe the $2 charge is paid to the skycaps," and argue that both U.S. Airways and Prime Flight have "knowingly profited off of this misunderstanding" ( id. at ¶ 4). Indeed, Plaintiffs characterize the fee as direct misappropriation of tip revenue, since it functions, in practice, as a requirement that the skycaps remit to U.S. Airways "a large portion of the tips they receive[ ] from patrons in order to cover [the] mandatory per bag fee" ( id. at ¶ 21).

Plaintiffs further claim that as the skycaps' tip income decreased, "many skycaps' compensation fell below minimum wage"-a fact that the Defendants intentionally obscured by "forc[ing the skycaps] to over-report their tips to appear as though they were making minimum wage" ( id. at ¶ 5). In addition, the Defendants allegedly "forced [the skycaps] to work through their meal breaks," and skycaps "did not receive compensation for work performed off-the-clock and/or overtime compensation for work performed in excess of forty hours per week" ( id. at ¶ 6).

On February 3, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against U.S. Airways and Prime Flight in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Several weeks later, the Defendants removed the case to this Court. The gravamen of the Complaint is that the Defendants violated Pennsylvania's minimum wage law and deprived the Plaintiffs of tips and other compensation to which they were legally entitled.The Complaint sets out four specific counts.

Count I claims that the Plaintiffs and proposed class members were "tipped employees," as defined in 34 Pa.Code. § 231.1, and that Defendants violated Section 4(a) of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), 43 P.S. § 333.104(a), by "paying [tipped] employees a wage that was less than the [minimum] wage in effect under Section 4 of the Act, and by depriving [these] employees of tips to which they had a legal entitlement and which should have otherwise been credited towards the employees' hourly wages" ( id. ¶ 36). ² Count II alleges that Defendants violated Section 4(c) of the PMWA, 43 P.S. § 333.104(c), by requiring Plaintiffs and proposed class members to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation, and also by deducting 30 minutes for lunch breaks even when skycaps took a shorter break or no break at all. Count III alleges that Defendants have tortiously interfered with an implied contractual and/or business relationship between skycaps and airline passengers; and Count IV claims that Defendants were unjustly enriched by their allegedly unlawful conduct.

Because the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were unjustly enriched, Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to the common law remedy of quantum meruit (literally, "as much as he has deserved"), which in this case would include any wages and overtime compensation not paid to Plaintiffs in violation of Pennsylvania law. They also seek "interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and equitable, restitutionary, and injunctive relief" ( id. ¶ 17), as well as "any other relief as the Court may determine is appropriate" ( id. ¶ 40). Notably, the Complaint does not specify what kind of injunctive relief the Plaintiffs are hoping to receive.

Legal Standard

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint. Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ( quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 47, 78 S.Ct. 99). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, the plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (citations omitted). Specifically, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level...." Id. (citations omitted).

In making such a determination, courts "must only consider those facts alleged in the complaint and accept all of those allegations as true." ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir.1994) ( citing Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984)); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The Court must also accept as true all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the allegations, and view facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Rocks v. Philadelphia, 868 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir.1989). The Court, however, need not acceptas true "unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences," Doug Grant v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173, 183-84 (3d Cir.2000) ( citing City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co., 147 F.3d 256, 263 n. 13 (3d Cir.1998)), or the plaintiff's "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.1997).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court may consider the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and records of which the Court may take judicial notice. See Tellabs v. Makor Issues & Rts., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007); Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.1993).

Discussion

US Airways has moved to dismiss the entire Complaint on several grounds. First, it argues that each of Plaintiffs' claims is preempted by federal law under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 ("ADA"), 49 U.S.C.S. § 40101, et seq. US Airways also argues that the Plaintiffs' two statutory claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed to allege that U.S. Airways is a joint employer; and that the Plaintiffs' two common law claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for tortious interference or unjust enrichment. The Court will address each of U.S. Airways' arguments in turn.

I. Preemption

A. Preemption and the ADA

"In deciding whether a federal law preempts a state statute, our task is to ascertain Congress's intent in enacting the federal statute at issue." Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 95, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983). Courts begin the preemption analysis with a presumption that Congress did not intend to supplant state law-and this presumption is heightened where federal law is said to bar state action in fields of traditional state regulation. New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans...