White v. United Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 February 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-2546,19-2546
• Parties: Eric WHITE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. and United Continental Holdings, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

987 F.3d 616

Eric WHITE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.UNITED AIRLINES, INC. and United Continental Holdings, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-2546

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued September 21, 2020

Decided February 3, 2021

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 10, 2021

Matthew Crotty, Attorney, CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC, Thomas G. Jarrard, Attorney, Spokane, WA, Peter Romer-Friedman, Deepak Gupta, Jonathan Taylor, Attorneys, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Robert Joseph Barton, Attorney, BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Pooja Shethji, Attorney, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff - Appellant.

Douglas Ward Hall, Attorney, JONES DAY, Washington, DC, Matthew J. Rubenstein, Attorney, JONES DAY, Minneapolis, MN, Michael J. Gray, Ann-Marie Woods, Attorneys, JONES DAY, Chicago, IL, for Defendants - Appellees.

John Paul Schnapper-Casteras, Attorney, SCHNAPPER-CASTERAS PLLC, Washington, DC, Samuel F. Wright, Attorney, Waco, TX, for Amicus Curiae RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION.

Anton Metlitsky, Mark Wayne Robertson, Attorneys, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, New York, NY, Riva Parker, Patricia N. Vercelli, Washington, DC, Jason Zarrow, Attorney, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Amicus Curiae AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED.

Anton Metlitsky, Mark Wayne Robertson, Attorneys, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, New York, NY, Daryl Joseffer, Attorney, Emily Kennedy, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Washington, DC, Jason Zarrow, Attorney, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Amicus Curiae CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Before Wood, Brennan, and Scudder, Circuit Judges.

Wood, Circuit Judge.

In 1994, Congress passed the Uniformed Services Employee and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) with the goal of prohibiting civilian employers from discriminating against employees because of their military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4301(a). At issue in this case is a matter of first impression in the courts of appeals: whether USERRA's mandate that military leave be accorded the same "rights and benefits" as comparable, nonmilitary leave requires an employer to provide paid military leave to the same extent that it provides paid leave for other absences, such as jury duty and sick leave. The district court answered that question in the negative and dismissed the suit. We read the statute differently. We find that paid leave falls within the set of "rights and benefits" defined by the statute, and so we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I

Eric White has been employed as a commercial airline pilot since 2005, first for Continental Airlines and then for United Airlines following United's acquisition of Continental in 2010. White has also served as a member of the United States Air Force since 2000, first on active duty and now on reserve duty. As a reservist he is required to attend periodic military-training sessions to remain ready in the event he is called back into active duty. White has taken periods of short-term military leave, usually for a day or two at a time, during which he did not receive pay from United.

Under United's collective bargaining agreement, pilots receive pay when they take other short-term leaves of absence, such as jury duty or sick leave. United also maintains a profit-sharing plan for its pilots. Under the plan, pilots are credited with a share of the company's profit based on the wages they earn over the relevant period. Because these credits are based on wages, pilots who take paid sick leave or paid leave for jury duty earn credit toward their profit-sharing plan, while pilots who take short-term military leave do not.

In January 2019, White initiated this class action against United Continental Holdings ("UCH") and its wholly owned subsidiary, United Airlines, Inc. ("UAL") (collectively, "United"), alleging that United's failure to provide paid leave and profit-sharing-plan credit to reservists on military leave denies them "rights and benefits" that are given for comparable, nonmilitary leaves, thereby violating USERRA, 38 U.S.C. § 4316(b)(1). The district court dismissed White's complaint. It rejected White's interpretation of the statute because it feared that it would create a de facto universal requirement that private employers pay for military leave, contrary to the settled understanding of the statute. See, e.g. , Miller v. City of Indianapolis , 281 F.3d 648, 650 (7th Cir. 2002) ; see also 20 C.F.R. § 1002.7(c). In the alternative, the court held as a matter of law that jury duty and military leave are not comparable for the purposes of USERRA, and so the statute's equal-benefits rule does not apply. It did not reach White's class allegations.¹

II

We evaluate de novo a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss. Mueller v. City of Joliet , 943 F.3d 834, 836 (7th Cir. 2019). In addition, this case concerns a question of statutory interpretation, which we likewise consider de novo . United States v. Miller , 883 F.3d 998, 1003 (7th Cir. 2018). On a motion to dismiss, we accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Burger v. Cnty. of Macon , 942 F.3d 372, 374 (7th Cir. 2019). We note as well that we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, so long as the issue was adequately raised before the district court. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Edward E. Gillen Co. , 926 F.3d 318, 324 (7th Cir. 2019).

White raises three issues on appeal. His first assertion is that the continued receipt of one's wages during a leave of absence qualifies without further ado as one of the "rights and benefits" of employment contemplated by section 4316(b)(1). Next, he argues that United's profit-sharing plan, which credits pilots with a share of the company's profit based on the wages they earn over a relevant period, also falls within the scope of section 4316(b)(1). Finally, he contends that the district court erred in holding as a matter of law that jury duty and military leave are not comparable. United responds with an alternate theory for partial affirmance: it says that we must at least dismiss the claims against United Continental Holdings, because UCH is not an "employer" within the meaning of USERRA and so is not a proper defendant.

As a preliminary matter, we conclude that White's profit-sharing-plan claim rises or falls with his paid-leave claim. Both hinge on whether United's pilots are entitled to their wages while on military leave. We therefore focus on the question whether paid leave counts as one of the "rights and benefits" of employment under USERRA.

III

We begin, as usual, with the statutory text. Section 4316(b)(1) provides:

[A] person who is absent from a position of employment by reason of service in the uniformed services shall be—

(A) deemed to be on furlough or leave of absence while performing such service; and

(B) entitled to such other rights and benefits not determined by seniority as are generally provided by the employer of the person to employees having similar seniority, status, and pay who are on furlough or leave of absence under a contract, agreement, policy, practice, or plan in effect at the commencement of such service or established while such person performs such service.

38 U.S.C. § 4316(b)(1). Section 4303(2) defines "rights and benefits" as

the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including any advantage, profit, privilege, gain, status, account, or interest (including wages or salary for work performed) that accrues by reason of an employment contract or agreement or an employer policy, plan, or practice and includes rights and benefits under a pension plan, a health plan, an employee stock ownership plan, insurance coverage and awards, bonuses, severance pay, supplemental unemployment benefits, vacations, and the opportunity to select work hours or location of employment.

38 U.S.C. § 4303(2).

The Department of Labor has promulgated final regulations, after notice and comment, that implement USERRA. See 38 U.S.C. § 4331(a). The regulation provides:

If the non-seniority benefits to which employees on furlough or leave of absence are entitled vary according to the type of leave, the employee must be given the most favorable treatment accorded to any comparable form of leave when he or she performs service in the uniformed services. In order to determine whether any two types of leave are comparable, the duration of the leave may be the most significant factor to compare. For instance, a two-day funeral leave will not be "comparable" to an extended leave for service in the uniformed service. In addition to comparing the duration of the absences, other factors such as the purpose of the leave and the ability of the employee to choose when to take the leave should also be considered.

20 C.F.R. § 1002.150(b).

White argues that section 4303(2) defines the term "rights and benefits" broadly, and under this definition paid leave—i.e. , compensation at the normal rate during a leave of absence—is included. We agree with him.

When Congress furnishes a statutory definition for a term, the specialized meaning it selects takes priority over the everyday meaning of words. See Samantar v. Yousuf , 560 U.S. 305, 315, 130 S.Ct. 2278, 176 L.Ed.2d 1047 (2010). Section 4303(2)'s definition of "rights and benefits" captures all "terms, conditions, or privileges," with no express limitations. Congress filled the rest of the definition with expansive and illustrative words such as "including" and "any." See Smith v. Berryhill , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1774, 204 L.Ed.2d 62 (2019) ("Congress' use of the word ‘any’ suggests an intent to use [the accompanying] term expansive[ly]." (second alteration in original)); Bloate v. United States , 559 U.S. 196, 207, 130 S.Ct. 1345, 176 L.Ed.2d 54 (2010) (explaining that the word "including" is "an expansive or illustrative term"). An employer's policy of paying employees...