Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2021

Horowitz v. Skywest Airlines, Inc.

Judge
Maxine Chesney
Docket
3:21-cv-04674
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
EmploymentMotion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Horowitz v. SkyWest Airlines, Judge Chesney granted SkyWest’s motion to dismiss Horowitz’s unpaid-overtime claim under California law.

Who this affects

Gregory Horowitz’s California overtime claim against SkyWest Airlines, Inc.; the order addressed only the Second Cause of Action.

What happened

In Horowitz v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., former SkyWest pilot Gregory Horowitz claimed the company violated California overtime laws by not paying enough overtime for long workdays or workweeks and by excluding nondiscretionary bonuses from overtime calculations. His claim was the second of 14 claims in his complaint.

SkyWest argued that the claim was barred because the California transportation-industry wage order excludes employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement under the Railway Labor Act. Judge Chesney considered three SkyWest pilot-policy manuals because Horowitz relied on them and did not dispute their authenticity. The court found that the manuals were collective bargaining agreements covering the pilots’ employment terms and that the exemption applied to both the wage-order and statutory overtime claims.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted SkyWest’s motion to dismiss the Second Cause of Action and dismissed it without leave to amend.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Horowitz v. Skywest Airlines, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-04674
Judge
Maxine Chesney
Date
Sept. 8, 2021

Background

Gregory Horowitz was formerly employed by SkyWest Airlines, Inc. as a pilot. His First Amended Class Action and Private Attorneys General Act Complaint asserted 14 causes of action based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. SkyWest moved to dismiss the Second Cause of Action, which sought overtime compensation under California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 9-2001.

The Second Cause of Action alleged that SkyWest failed to pay overtime for work exceeding eight hours in one day or 40 hours in one week. It also alleged that overtime payments were too low because nondiscretionary bonuses were not included in the regular rate used to calculate overtime.

Reasoning

Wage Order 9 applies to workers in the transportation industry but excludes employees who have entered into a collective bargaining agreement under the Railway Labor Act. SkyWest argued that this exemption applied to Horowitz.

Although courts generally cannot consider material outside the complaint when deciding a motion to dismiss, the court considered three versions of SkyWest’s Pilot Policy Manual. Horowitz relied on SkyWest’s definitions of “block times” and “duty time,” which appeared in those manuals, and he did not dispute their authenticity. The court also noted that the manuals could be considered through judicial notice if requested.

The court found that the manuals were collective bargaining agreements under the Railway Labor Act. They were agreements between SkyWest, described as a carrier, and the SkyWest Airlines Pilot Association, described as the employees, and addressed compensation, training, scheduling, corrective action, and grievance procedures. Together, the three manuals covered Horowitz’s entire period of employment.

The court further held that the Railway Labor Act exemption from Wage Order 9’s overtime requirements also barred claims under California Labor Code section 510, which contains identical overtime requirements. The court relied on California law and a Ninth Circuit decision stating that the exemption applies to both Wage Order 9 and section 510.

Disposition

Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted SkyWest’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Second Cause of Action without leave to amend.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.