Administration Opposes Airlines in Lawsuit Over Crew Breaks
The Biden administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a California law that would provide more rest and meal breaks than airline crews are guaranteed under federal rules.
May 26, 2022 at 01:54 PM
2 minute read
The Biden administration has sided against the airline industry and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a California law that would provide more rest and meal breaks than airline crews are guaranteed under federal rules.
The U.S. solicitor general and other administration officials said in a filing that California's law is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration's authority to regulate airline safety.
A federal appeals court ruled in 2021 that California was within its rights to apply a law on employee rest and meal breaks to the airline industry. The original defendant, Virgin America, was later bought by Alaska Airlines, which asked the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.
The administration asked the court to deny the airline's appeal to hear the case or send the matter back to lower courts for further consideration. The Trump administration had sided with the airlines when the case went before the appeals court.
The airline industry, represented by trade group Airlines for America, has lobbied to overturn the appeals court ruling. Airlines worry about a patchwork of different state rules, and the trade group says the California law would cause airlines to reduce flights and raise fares.
The trade group said Wednesday, "The conflict between federal and state law is a critical issue with nationwide implications," and it hopes that the Supreme Court will overturn the lower court's ruling.
Under the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, airlines would have to release California-based flight crews from all job duties — even during flights — for 10 minutes every four hours, a 30-minute meal break every five hours, and another meal break after 10 hours.
FAA rules set a maximum work day of 14 hours for flight attendants during which they can take meal breaks but must remain on duty. That saves airlines the cost of adding flight attendants to cover for those who are off-duty.
Lawyers for flight attendants who sued Virgin America say that a 1978 federal law deregulating the airline industry gave the FAA sole authority over airline prices, routes and services, but not other matters.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSecurities Claims Against Lilium N.V. for Electric Plane Production Delays Fail to Take Flight, Federal Judge Holds
5 minute readFamily Sues United Airlines After Miscommunication Leads to 'Near Death' Dive Toward Ocean
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250