SCOTUS passes on Boeing bid to block pilot union suit over 737 Max training

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case brought by Boeing, in which the aviation company requested the high court block a pilot association from suing over inadequate training for the 737 Max, the plane involved in two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019. 

The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association initially brought the lawsuit in Texas soon after the new plane was ordered to a 20-month grounding in 2019, asserting the company interfered with its business relationship with Southwest and fraudulently induced the pilots to agree to fly the Max. 

While Boeing successfully argued in state and federal lower courts in Texas that the association’s argument was preempted by the Railway Labor Act — a 1926 statute meant to avoid lengthy labor disputes and enforce collective bargaining agreements — the Supreme Court of Texas reversed. 

The aviation company requested the Supreme Court intervene and reverse the Texas court’s decision, arguing the decision was contrary to the analysis by judges in the Northern District of Texas and Texas state court and ignored the statute’s text. 

“Forum shopping will be inevitable if courts in the same geographic area can interpret the same federal law differently,” Boeing argued in its petition. “The Texas Supreme Court’s interpretation of the RLA also cannot be reconciled with what the statute says. The RLA governs — and so preempts — all ‘disputes growing out of … the interpretation or application’ of a [collective bargaining agreement].” 

“The Texas Supreme Court’s decision thus frustrates Congress’ efforts to create a uniform nationwide system for adjudicating labor disputes,” Boeing added. 

Further, the Texas court’s decision is contrary to the Supreme Court’s own decision in Hawaiian Airlines Inc. v. Norris, a 1994 case where the high court held that the Railway Labor Act preempts a state-law claim when it can only be resolved by interpreting a bargaining agreement, Boeing argued. The decision also conflicts with precedents in the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and Eight Circuits, the company added. 

The pilot association urged the Supreme Court to ignore the aviation company’s petition, asserting the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling was correct and this was a “factually atypical” case the high court did not need to address. 

“Whatever preemption question this case may raise — which SWAPA contends is none — it is of no serious interest outside of this proceeding,” the association argued. “Boeing’s claims about alleged ‘havoc’ flowing from this litigation are not well-founded.”

In 2006, the pilot association had entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Southwest, governing pay rates and working conditions for pilots flying the 737 planes. 

When Boeing announced the 737 Max in 2011, the association sued Southwest over a disagreement over whether the 2006 agreement obligated the pilots to fly the new model, before ultimately negotiating a new agreement in 2016 that expressly required the pilots fly the new model. 

Following the two fatal crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia — primarily caused by the faulty Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System that Boeing had kept hidden from pilots and the Federal Aviation Administration predicted could cause 15 crashes over 30 years — the FAA grounded the plane, and Southwest reduced pilots’ hours. 

The pilot association sought lost wages and union fees on behalf of thousands of member pilots under Texas state law. Boeing removed the case to the Northern District of Texas, arguing the association’s claims were prompted by the Railway Labor Act because they required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. 

A federal judge sided with Boeing, further finding the association likely did not have standing, but remanded the case to state court rather than dismissing it. There, a judge dismissed the case. 

The association appealed to the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals, which reversed the lawsuit’s dismissal and rejected the preemption argument, finding that the federal statute could only apply to claims between signatories to a collective bargaining agreement. 

Boeing, as a third party to the agreement, could not use the statute to avoid the association’s lawsuit. 

The appeals court declined to reconsider the case en banc. Boeing highlighted a “forceful” dissent by Appellate Judge David Schenck, who said the decision “conflicted with federal decisional authority by the Supreme Court” and ignored the statute’s text. 

Follow @Ryan_Knappy