Kincheloe v. American Airlines, Inc.

Background

American Airlines moved to stay, or temporarily pause, discovery while its pending motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was considered. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. The court found the motion suitable for decision without oral argument and vacated the hearing on the discovery motion.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted a single claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA. American argued that the claim could be dismissed because the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged constructive discharge. Constructive discharge is a claim that working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign.

Legal standard

The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically stay discovery when a potentially case-ending motion is pending. But district courts have broad authority to manage discovery. In this district, courts generally consider whether the pending motion could dispose of the entire case or the issue targeted by discovery, and whether the motion can be decided without discovery. Courts may also consider whether a stay would improve efficiency and conserve resources.

Court’s analysis

After taking a preliminary look at the motion to dismiss, the court found that American had made the required strong showing that its motion could potentially dispose of the case. The court noted that some allegations in the Second Amended Complaint—concerning denied leave and reduced work schedules, discouragement of mask use, requiring flight attendants to fly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and COVID-19’s disproportionate effect on older people—closely resembled allegations in the First Amended Complaint. The court had previously found that similar facts did not plausibly show constructive discharge.

The court also recognized that the plaintiffs had added allegations, including allegations about American’s response to recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concerning facemasks, that could potentially support a plausible claim. The court emphasized that its review was only preliminary and that it was not then conducting the full evaluation of the motion to dismiss.

The court agreed that no additional discovery was needed to decide whether the complaint plausibly stated an ADEA claim. It also found that efficiency favored a stay because the discovery involved nearly 50,000 search hits and families, which American said would require more than 1,000 attorney hours to review. The court further noted that American sought the stay twelve days after the Second Amended Complaint was filed and two days before filing its motion to dismiss.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted American Airlines’ motion to stay discovery. Discovery was stayed pending resolution of American’s motion to dismiss. The order did not rule on the motion to dismiss or determine whether the plaintiffs’ ADEA claim would proceed.