Tice v. American Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-1384.,04-1384. |
| Citation | 373 F.3d 851 |
| Parties | Robert H. TICE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Alan M. Serwer (submitted), Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Columbus R. Gangemi, Jr., Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before POSNER, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs in this suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act are 14 American Airlines pilots who, having reached age 60 and thus become disqualified (by virtue of a regulation of the Federal Aviation Administration that is not challenged) to pilot the airline's planes, claim the right to downgrade to the position of flight officer. Some of American's aircraft have three pilots in the cockpit — the captain, the first officer (copilot), and the flight officer. The flight officer must ordinarily be a pilot, but his duties do not involve flying the airplane; instead they involve monitoring the plane's fuel, electrical, and other systems. American refuses to permit a captain who has been disqualified as a pilot to downgrade to flight officer. The plaintiffs, all former captains, contend that this refusal violates the age discrimination law.
American replies that the refusal has nothing to do with age, but rather is compelled by its collective bargaining agreement with the plaintiffs' union, which establishes an "up or out" policy: a flight officer who cannot qualify for a higher position cannot remain in the cockpit. Because the flight officer's job is a kind of apprenticeship for actually flying the airplane, American wants the job filled by pilots eligible to progress to the flying positions. Although an eligible captain who downgrades is not an apprentice, his eligibility makes it likely that he will someday again be flying the aircraft and it therefore makes sense that he should stay in the cockpit rather than take a job on the ground; it will help him maintain his proficiency. The plaintiffs are ineligible to pilot the aircraft and so no purpose would be served by allowing them to be flight officers.
We ruled the last time this case was here that the question whether American was indeed compelled by the collective bargaining agreement to refuse to allow the plaintiffs to downgrade to flight officer would have to be referred to the arbitral machinery established by the Railway Labor Act, because that is the exclusive route for obtaining an authoritative interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement in the airline industry, Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252-53, 114 S.Ct. 2239, 129 L.Ed.2d 203 (1994); Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868, 881 (9th Cir.2002); Westbrook v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 35 F.3d 316 (7th Cir.1994), and because the plaintiffs "have no possible age discrimination claim if it turns out that the collective bargaining agreement expressly or by implication makes all disqualified captains, regardless of age, ineligible to become flight officers and is applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion in accordance with its terms." 288 F.3d 313, 314, 318 (7th Cir.2002) (emphasis in original).
So the matter was referred to the relevant arbitral body, the System Board of Adjustment, which sided with American, ruling that the collective bargaining agreement indeed established the "up or out" policy that American said it did. On the basis of this ruling the district court dismissed the suit.
The appeal presents a scattershot of issues. The plaintiffs seem not to have heard of the doctrine of the law of the case, under which a ruling made in an earlier phase of a litigation controls the later phases unless a good reason is shown to depart from it. Pilch v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 585 (7th Cir.2003); United States v. Noble, 299 F.3d 907, 910 (7th Cir.2002); Alphamed, Inc. v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 367 F.3d 1280, 1285-86 (4th Cir.2004). The passage that we quoted from our previous opinion establishes as the law of this case that if the collective bargaining agreement creates a flat, age-neutral policy, neutrally enforced, forbidding captains to downgrade to flight officer, that is the end of the case. As our statement of the doctrine indicated, it is not hard and fast, and so a party is free to argue that an intervening change in law or other changed or special circumstance warrants a departure. E.g., Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988); Pilch v. Ashcroft, supr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Hammer
...of second-guessing that the Director believes would invade the province of the Illinois liquidation court. See Tice v. Am. Airlines, Inc. , 373 F.3d 851, 854 (7th Cir. 2004) ("[a]s long as what the arbitrators did can fairly be described as interpretation, our hands are tied"); Yasuda , 37 ......
-
United States v. Dish Network, L. L.C.
...should not reconsider decision of previous judge of the same hierarchical level unless a compelling reason); Tice v. American Airlines, Inc., 373 F.3d 851, 854 (7th Cir.2004) (Successor judge should follow previous opinions in a case unless there is an intervening change in the law or other......
-
In re Cmgt, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 04 B 31669.
...of litigation, that ruling controls the later phases unless a good reason is shown to depart from that ruling. Tice v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 373 F.3d 851, 853 (7th Cir.2004). "[T]he law of the case doctrine embodies the notion that a court ought not to re-visit an earlier ruling in a case abs......
-
Cobbs v. Sheahan
...in an earlier phase of a litigation controls the later phases unless a good reason is shown to depart from it." Tice v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 373 F.3d 851, 853 (7th Cir.2004); see also Payne v. Churchich, 161 F.3d 1030, 1037 n. 8 (7th Cir.1998). The doctrine is not the impenetrable barrier, a......