June 8 (UPI) — Lawyers representing Virgin America and Alaska Airlines have filed a new supplemental brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case regarding the rights of California flight attendants.
At issue is whether California labor law or federal rules apply when it comes to how flight attendants’ rest and meal breaks are governed. The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to review the case on June 23, according to lawyers for the airlines.
Virgin America and Alaska Airlines argue in the new brief that a Ninth Circuit decision, which said airlines could comply with California’s meal and rest break laws by adding a flight attendant to every flight, would be too costly.
“It’s hard to imagine state-law requirements with a more significant impact on airline prices, routes, and services,” the airlines said in their brief.
The flight attendants argue that California labor law should apply to in-state flights when it comes to regulation of meal and rest breaks.
President Joe Biden’s administration is siding with the flight attendants and urging the Supreme Court not to grant review of a lower court decision won by the flight attendants and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
A brief by President Joe Biden’s administration argues that prior case law makes clear that further review by the Supreme Court is unwarranted in the flight attendants’ case. Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI
The airlines argue that California meal and rest break laws are superseded by the Airline Deregulation Act, which pre-empts state requirements “relating to a price, route or service of an air carrier.”
The airlines’ lawyers say a related question is whether California laws conflict with Federal Aviation Administration rules.
The U.S. Solicitor General’s brief opposing the airlines’ request for Supreme Court review said the main legal question is whether generally applicable California labor laws governing employee meal and rest breaks, when applied to California-based flight attendants on intrastate flights, are “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.”
The government’s brief argues that prior case law makes clear that further review by the Supreme Court is unwarranted in this case.
The airlines cited a study by consulting firm InterVISTAS that says total economic damage would be between $9-$39 billion if airlines were compelled to follow California’s break law.
Biden’s position on the break issue is different from that of former President Donald Trump’s.
Lawyers representing the airlines said after Trump’s administration told the Ninth Circuit that compliance with California law would have a significant market impact, the federal government under Biden now claims it’s possible to comply with both federal rules and state law without having that market impact.
“Although the Court asked for the government’s legal judgment, it seems that what the Court got was another helping of the government’s political preferences,” Virgin and Alaska wrote in their brief.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.