Megan K. Mechak
Thu, 03/02/2023
On February 27, 2023, a federal court in Illinois allowed a class of current and former SkyWest Airlines, Inc. whose flight duties predominantly terminated at airports in California and Washington to pursue their challenge the company’s pay structure, defeating the Defendants’ second motion to dismiss. The flight attendants allege in Tapp v. SkyWest, Inc., Case No. 15-CV-11117, that SkyWest only pays flight attendants for their time spent performing duties on aircraft, and not for time spent performing collateral duties before, between, or after flights. According to the plaintiffs, this failure means they were systemically underpaid, in violation of minimum wage and overtime laws.
Plaintiffs initially brought their lawsuit in 2015, asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and various state wage and hour laws. A first motion by SkyWest resulting in dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims in 2017. After an appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, but reinstated their state law claims. The trial court’s reconsideration of SkyWest’s first motion to dismiss later resulted in dismissal of the flight attendants’ claims based on Arizona state law.
Defendants’ second motion sought dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims based on California law, asserting that the existence of a company Flight Attendant Policy Manual exempted them from California wage and hour laws. Order No. 9-2001 from California’s Industrial Welfare Commission exempts from California’s overtime laws “those employees who have entered into a collective bargaining agreement under and in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.” The Industrial Welfare Commission regulates the wages, hours, and working conditions of California’s transportation industry. The Court concluded that, because there was no evidence that the Flight Attendant Policy Manual had been negotiated with a designated representative chosen by the flight attendants to represent them, the Defendants’ motion failed. The Court noted, however, that only “minimal additional evidence” should be required to address the Defendants’ arguments at the summary judgment stage.
MSE represents employees whose employers have denied them compensation for all of their work time. For more information, visit MSE’s Unpaid Overtime webpage. If you believe you have not been paid for all of your work time, contact MSE at info@mselaborlaw.com.
