Update On Litigation Against APFA

Update On Litigation Against APFA
by APFA Legal Counsel

There has been interest in the status of the lawsuits filed against APFA during 2002 and 2003 by APFA members. These lawsuits claim that APFA violated its legal obligations in connection with the APFA/AA December 2001 Seniority Integration Agreement (SIA) and/or the 2003 APFA/AA Restructured Contract. In response to that interest, APFA has published an Active Litigation Page on our Web site. You will find this page by going to www.apfa.org and clicking on the link on the left hand side entitled: Lawsuits.

We have done our best to describe these cases in lay terms and have published any key court decisions in their entirety on the Unionís Web site. You will find a brief description of each lawsuit included in this article and its current status along with the plaintiffs and defendants listed. Ultimately, all of the final court decisions will be published on the Web site.

CASE : ANTHONY 03-CV-03681 STATUS : DISMISSED Margaret Anthony; Plaintiff vs. American Airlines, Inc. and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, Defendants

Review the following document relating to this case at www.apfa.org:
ï Anthony Case Dismissal ñ 09.27.06

CASE : COOPER 02-CV-03477 STATUS: ACTIVE Sherry Cooper, Cynthia Jones, Pamela Jackson, Paige Verducci, Wilson Aviles, Kristine Wolanske, Cathy Whittington, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and William OíDriscoll as representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Plaintiffs vs. TWA Airlines, LLC, American Airlines, Inc., APFA, John Ward as representative of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and Donald J. Carty, individually and as Chief Executive Officer of American Airlines, Inc. Defendants

The original lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 14, 2002, by seven former TWA Flight Attendants and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), challenging the Flight Attendant Seniority Integration Agreement (SIA) entered into by AA and APFA. This lawsuit stemmed from the events surrounding AAís acquisition of TWA, the integration of the TWA-LLC flight attendants into AAís workforce, and the subsequent furlough of TWA-LLC flight attendants.

The Plaintiffs retained new attorneys in January 2003 and amended their complaint in March 2003 to restate their attack on the SIA in new terms.

On April 15, 2003, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and on June 20, 2003, they filed a Supplemental Complaint, both of which involved the Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA) between AA and APFA. In these papers, and in a hearing in court at the end of June 2003, the Plaintiffs attempted to stop AA from implementing the RPA and alleged that APFAís conduct in negotiating the RPA was a breach of our Unionís legal obligation to represent the former TWA flight attendants fairly (ìDuty of Fair Representationî). U.S. District Court Judge Carol Bagley Amon rejected the Plaintiffsí request and allowed the RPA to go into effect.

In August 2003, the Plaintiffs dismissed their second law firm. A third firm replaced them in October 2003. Both sides submitted written briefs regarding the SIA claims in the Amended Complaint.

On April 21, 2004, the Cooper case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon. In November 2004, the Amended Complaint regarding seniority integration was dismissed in its entirety. The Plaintiffs attempted to file an appeal regarding the ruling on the SIA claims, but that appeal was dismissed as premature in January 2005 because the Supplemental Complaint remained pending.

Both sides had the opportunity to gather information and potential evidence from each other with respect to the RPA. This phase of the case, referred to as ìdiscovery,î was combined with the discovery in the Marcoux case and completed in July 2005.

In January 2007, Judge Gershon permitted the Plaintiffsí counsel to withdraw from the case ñ due to illness ñ and decertified the case, which had been proceeding as a class action on behalf of all former TWA flight attendants. The Plaintiffs are now proceeding solely as seven individuals, without counsel (ìpro seî), because they have missed the Court-established deadline for obtaining replacement counsel.

The court will now proceed to decide on APFAís request for dismissal on the pending claims. That request was made in the form of a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by APFAís counsel using information gathered during the ìDiscovery Phaseî to show Plaintiffsí claims are not valid. APFA is asking that the court enter judgment for APFA and, in effect, dismiss the case.

On July 25, 2007, APFA sent to the Plaintiffs its opening ìbriefî in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, together with volumes of documents supporting APFAís position. A brief is a court filing consisting of written arguments based on the facts and the law, aimed at demonstrating that the Court should rule in favor of the party filing the brief.

The Plaintiffsí brief opposing APFAís Motion for Summary Judgment was due on September 4, 2007, but the Plaintiffs failed to meet the deadline. Therefore, on September 6, 2007, APFA filed its motion papers with the Court.

APFA awaits Judge Gershonís ruling on our Motion for Summary Judgment. If the Court rules in APFAís favor and grants the Motion, as with any lawsuit, the Plaintiffs would have the right to appeal the Courtís ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
If Judge Gershon does not rule in APFAís favor on the Motion for Summary Judgment, since the discovery period has been completed, the parties would then proceed to trial once a date is scheduled by the court.

Review the following documents relating to this case at www.apfa.org:
ï Cooper Dismissal of Preliminary Injunction ñ 06.30.03
ï Cooper Dismissal of Amended Complaint ñ 11.23.04
ï Cooper Denial of Motion by Plaintiffís Counsel to Withdraw From Case ñ10.05.06

CASE: MARCOUX 04-CV-01376 STATUS: ACTIVE Ann Marcoux, Jill Lindsay, Kirsten Evans, Constance LaMattina, Elizabeth Lee Price (withdrew from case April 2006), Judith Alexander, Deborah Dean, Christina Ford, Patti Gentry, LaTonya K. Gillmore, Janet Gold, Dale Hagar, Julie Horan, Louis Horter, Carol Johnson, Molly Kaiman, Beverley Kalkhof, Nancy Anne Kello, Patricia Kennedy, Janet Kirby (deceased), John Kline (withdrew from case April 2006), Dottie Long, Karen Rivoira, Laurence Salomon III, Daniel Santiago, Rebecca Smith, and Deborah Whittington on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (i.e., the ìClassî); Constance LaMattina also on behalf of Subclass I, Kirsten Evans, Jill Lindsay, and Elizabeth Lee Price (withdrew from case April 2006), also on behalf of Subclass II; Deborah Whittington also on behalf of Subclass III; and Janet Kirby (deceased) also on behalf of Subclass IV, Plaintiffs vs. American Airlines, Inc., AMR Corporation, APFA, and John Ward, as representative of APFA, Defendants

Three cases known as Marcoux, Ford, and Lindsay were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in July of 2004. These three consolidated cases are now referred to as Marcoux.

Judge Nina Gershon is presiding in this case. She is also the Federal Judge handling the Cooper case, described above.

Marcoux arose out of the 2003 RPA. The Plaintiffs asserted claims for violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), the Duty of Fair Representation (DFR), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

APFA filed motions for dismissal in January 2005.

In March of 2006, Judge Gershon ruled on some of these motions and dismissed all of the RICO claims. She also dismissed the majority of the LMRDA claims.

Discovery (the gathering of information) finished in December of 2006 after five deadline extensions.

In March and May of 2007, briefs were filed by APFA in support of our Motion for Summary Judgment by the Plaintiffs in support of their Motion for Class Certification (to represent all flight attendants similarly situated to the Plaintiffs). Each side also has filed briefs opposing the otherís motions and responding to those oppositions.

APFA awaits Judge Gershonís ruling on our Motion for Summary Judgment. If the Court rules in APFAís favor and grants the Motion, as in any lawsuit the plaintiffs would have the right to appeal the Courtís ruling, potentially appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, although it is highly unlikely the case would go that far.

If Judge Gershon does not rule in APFAís favor on the Motion for Summary Judgment, since the discovery period has been completed, the parties will proceed to trial once a date is scheduled by the Court.

Review the following documents at www.apfa.org:
ï Marcoux Partial Dismissal of Complaints ñ 03.28.06

CASE: PARKER 07-CV-00899 STATUS: ACTIVE Brigitte Parker Plaintiff vs. AMR, American Airlines, Inc., and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants Defendants

This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. It has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Mary H. Murguia.

Plaintiff is a former TWA flight attendant who was furloughed from American Airlines in 2003. She claims that her furlough, and the fact that she has not been recalled, are due to unlawful discrimination based on race, sex and age.

Plaintiff is not being represented by an attorney at this time and is proceeding ìpro seî (representing herself without counsel).

In July of 2007, APFA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asking the Court, in essence, to dismiss the case. Plaintiffís opposition to that Motion is due October 9, 2007.

APFA will then have until October 29, 2007, to respond to the Plaintiffís filed opposition.

We expect that once these papers are submitted, the Court will rule in APFAís favor on the motion to dismiss.

No documents issued by the court to date.