Refuerzo v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Background

Roreste Refuerzo alleged that Southwest Airlines Co. used an attendance-point system for flight attendants. Employees could earn a two-point reduction for each calendar quarter in which they were active for the entire quarter and had no chargeable occurrences. Before March 1, 2019, using leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) did not affect that point-reduction process.

Southwest later adopted a rule under which using intermittent FMLA leave disqualified a flight attendant from receiving the two-point reduction. Refuerzo alleged that he used approved intermittent FMLA leave for a chronic knee injury, had no violations during the relevant quarter, and nevertheless did not receive the reduction. He alleged that Southwest later assessed him 2.5 points for a late sick call and terminated him after stating that his attendance points had reached the termination level.

Refuerzo brought FMLA interference, discrimination, and retaliation claims on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of United States-based flight attendants. He also brought CFRA discrimination and retaliation claims, a wrongful-termination claim based on public policy, and an unfair-competition claim on behalf of a proposed California subclass, along with individual CFRA and wrongful-termination claims.

Railway Labor Act preemption

Southwest argued that the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which establishes procedures for resolving labor disputes in the airline industry, preempted—or displaced—Refuerzo’s claims because they involved a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Southwest characterized the dispute as a “minor” dispute that had to proceed through the CBA’s grievance and arbitration process.

The court applied a two-step test. First, it asked whether the claims sought to enforce a right created only by the CBA. Second, it asked whether resolving the claims substantially depended on interpreting the CBA. The court held that Refuerzo’s claims were based on an independent right created by the FMLA and CFRA: the right to take protected family and medical leave without being penalized. The CBA’s record-improvement provision was relevant, but it was not the source of that claimed right.

The court also concluded that the claims did not substantially depend on interpreting the CBA. The complaint challenged Southwest’s March 2019 rule concerning intermittent FMLA leave, and the court noted that the rule was not contained in the CBA. The court distinguished the question whether the rule violated the CBA from the separate question whether it violated the FMLA or CFRA. The court therefore held that the claims were not preempted and that it had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Failure to state a claim

Southwest alternatively sought dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court explained that the FMLA protects an employee’s right to take a specified amount of protected leave and to return to the same or an equivalent job. It also prohibits an employer from using FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment decisions.

The court held that Refuerzo plausibly alleged FMLA interference. According to the complaint, he would have had a lower point balance if he had not taken FMLA leave, and Southwest said it based his termination on his point balance. Those allegations supported an inference that his leave was a negative factor in the termination decision and could discourage employees from using FMLA leave. The court rejected Southwest’s argument that Refuerzo had to show that FMLA leave was treated less favorably than equivalent non-FMLA leave in order to state an interference claim.

Because the CFRA is the California counterpart to the FMLA and the same standards apply, the court found that Southwest had not shown that the CFRA interference claim was insufficiently pleaded. The court also found that Southwest had not shown that the wrongful-termination and unfair-competition claims failed as claims derivative of the FMLA and CFRA claims.

Class claims

Southwest argued that the class claims were improperly pleaded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 because the FMLA supposedly adopted the Fair Labor Standards Act’s opt-in collective-action procedure. The court rejected that argument. It explained that class actions are generally presumed available unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise, and it found no such clear indication in the FMLA. The court held that invoking Rule 23 was not a basis for dismissal. This ruling did not decide whether a class should ultimately be certified.

Disposition

The court DENIED Southwest Airlines Co.’s motion to dismiss. It held that the claims, as framed in the complaint, were not preempted by the Railway Labor Act and that the complaint stated claims under the FMLA and CFRA. The order disposed of Docket No. 12 and set a case-management conference for June 2, 2022.