U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges 2 Executive Campus, Suite 450 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 (856) 486-3800 (856) 486-3806 (FAX) Issue Date: 21 December 2020 Case No.: 2018-AIR-00041 In the Matter of KARLENE PETITT Complainant v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. Respondent DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING RELIEF This matter arises under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR 21”), which was signed into law on April 5, 2000. See 49 U.S.C. § 42121. The Act includes a whistleblower protection provision, with a Department of Labor complaint procedure. Implementing regulations are at 29 C.F.R. Part 1979, published at 68 Fed. Reg. 14,100 (Mar. 21, 2003). The Decision and Order that follows is based on an analysis of the record, including items not specifically addressed the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Complainant filed an AIR 21 complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) on June 6, 2016. In its July 13, 2018 letter, OSHA, acting on behalf of the Secretary, found that the parties are covered under the Act, but there was insufficient evidence to establish reasonable cause that a violation occurred. Accordingly, OSHA dismissed the complaint. On August 1, 2018, Complainant objected to OSHA’s findings and requested a formal hearing before the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Subsequently, on August 27, 2018, this matter was assigned to the undersigned. On August 28, 2018, this Tribunal issued the Notice of Assignment and Conference Call. Complainant responded to the Notice of Assignment by letter dated September 6, 2018, and attached her statement, which was originally transmitted as part of her Complaint to OSHA. This Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and Pre-Hearing Order on September 27, 2018, and set the hearing for March 25-29, 2019 in the Seattle, Washington area. As part of this Order, the Tribunal required Complainant to file a Pleading Complaint. On October 18, 2018, Complainant filed its Pleading Complaint. On November 20, 2018, Respondent filed its Answer to Complainant’s Pleading Complaint. On December 6, 2018, Complainant filed a Motion to Amend her Pleading Complaint. On December 20, 2018, Respondent filed its opposition to Complainant’s amendment of the Pleading Complaint. On January 17, 2019, the Tribunal issued an Order granting Complainant’s Motion to Amend her Pleading Complaint. On December 4, 2018, Complainant filed a Motion for Summary Decision on the adverse action element. On December 26, 2019, Complainant filed its opposition to Complainant’s motion. On January 16, 2019, Complainant filed a Motion for Summary Decision. On February 6, 2019, Respondent filed its response to Complainant’s motion. On February 14, 2019, the parties submitted a joint stipulation on the issue of protected activity,1 specifically: [Respondent] stipulates that Complainant’s January 28, 2016 report (Complainant’s “report”) – that raised issues concerning: pilot fatigue, pilot training, pilot training record, and [Respondent’s] Safety Management Systems (SMS) programs – qualifies as protected conduct under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21). [Respondent] further stipulates that it will not challenge that Complainant engaged in protected conduct when she submitted her report to [Respondent] on January 28, 2016, when she offered to forward her report and eventually did forward it to other [Respondent] executives including Ed Bastian, when she discussed her report with Steven Dickson and Jim Graham on January 28, 2016 and thereafter, and when she gave a presentation to [Respondent] executives on April 27, 2016 concerning her report. [Respondent] by this stipulation does not waive any defenses to the Complaint filed by Complainant in this or any forum other than as described herein. On February 21, 2019, the Tribunal issued an Order denying Complainant’s Motion for Summary Decision. In this Order, the Tribunal found the parties subject to the Act, accepted the parties’ stipulation concerning protected activity, and found that subjecting Complainant to the Section 15 process was an adverse action. On February 12, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Decision arguing the Railway Labor Act precluded Complainant’s claims. On February 20, 2019, Complainant filed its response to this motion. On February 26, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion for leave to submit a reply brief. On February 27, 2019, the Tribunal issued an Order denying Respondent’s request to file a reply to Complainant’s reply to its Motion for Summary Decision. On March 1, 2019, after 1 See also Tr. at 8-9, 14, 21, 168, 184, 197. The Tribunal is aware of—and requests the reader to allow for—the possibility of page number-variances between the two versions of the transcript: paper and electronic. Variances may even exist between two electronic copies of the transcript, as the court reporter provided the electronic version of the hearing transcript in a format that is not guaranteed to preserve the fidelity of page numbers. - 2 - addressing in detail whether the Railway Labor Act serves to preempt application of AIR 21, the Tribunal issued an Order denying Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision.2 On December 26, 2018, Complainant filed a Motion to Compel the deposition of Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer, Ed Bastian. On January 15, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion for Protective Order. On January 26, 2019, the Tribunal issued an Order granting Complainant’s Motion to Compel the deposition of Ed Bastian. On January 31, 2019, Complainant filed a Motion for In Camera review of certain documents. On February 15, 2019, Respondent filed its opposition. On February 27, 2019, the Tribunal issued an Order granting in part Complainant’s Motion for In Camera review. On March 6, 2019, the Tribunal issued an Order finding privileged the documents reviewed in camera. The parties submitted their prehearing statements and proposed exhibit lists on March 18, 2019. Complainant’s prehearing materials averred that the sole issue outstanding for adjudication was whether Complainant carried the burden on the issue of whether the protected activity was a contributing factor with respect to one or more of the unfavorable personnel actions. This Tribunal held a hearing in this matter in Des Moines, Washington from March 25 to March 29, 2019, April 25, 2019 and from May 3 to May 5, 2019.3 Complainant and Respondent’s representative were present during all of these proceedings. At the hearing, this Tribunal admitted Joint Exhibits (“JX”) A – N, Respondent’s Exhibits (“RX”) 1 – 138, and Complainant’s Exhibits (“CX”) 1 – 200.4 In its opening statement, Respondent conceded that Complainant engaged in 2 Respondent asked the Tribunal to reconsider this ruling. Resp. Br. at 50. The Tribunal reaffirms its findings that Complainant’s claims concerning her alleged protected activities and adverse actions. As discussed, infra, the Tribunal also reaffirms its finding that Respondent’s alleged retaliatory actions are not preempted by the RLA because AIR 21 creates a separate cause of action, which is independent upon any interpretation of the Pilot Working Agreement. See Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision (Mar. 1, 2019) (the Tribunal incorporate herein the reasoning found in this Order). 3 The Transcript of the above referenced proceedings will hereafter be identified as “Tr.” Both parties provided brief opening statements. Tr. at 14-29. The April 25, 2019 hearing-day was of brief duration. The parties planned to take Captain Graham’s video-teleconference testimony. The Tribunal, Complainant, Complainant’s counsel, and members of the public were present at a hearing room in Des Moines, Washington; Respondent’s counsel–and presumably Captain Graham—were situated in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Respondent was unable to establish video- teleconference communication with the facilities in Des Moines, Washington. Given this development, the parties stipulated that Respondent would waive redirect or use of Captain Graham as a rebuttal witness, and that his deposition transcript would be admitted fully into the record. Tr. at 1273-74. Captain Graham’s deposition is admitted as CX 200. 4 Tr. at 6, 7, 211, 306, 2120-23. The Tribunal additionally forewarned the parties at the beginning of the hearing that exhibits not identified in their briefs would be considered as either duplicative of other evidence or not particularly relevant or persuasive to their case and accordingly they would be given little or no weight. Tr. at 8. The parties also agreed that the depositions of Mr. Bastian and Captain Dickson would be admitted substantively and in lieu of their live testimony. Later on, the parties also agreed that the deposition of Captain Graham would be considered in lieu of additional testimony from him. - 3 - protected activity when she submitted her report to Captain Graham and Captain Dickson on January 28, 2018. Tr. at 20. During the hearing itself, and after hearing argument from the parties,5 the Tribunal initially denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss the amendments to the complaint concerning alleged retaliatory acts by Respondent’s counsel during the litigation itself. Tr. at 505. However, after listening to the evidence presented on those allegations 6 (Tr. at 508-09) and, in response to Respondent renewing its motion to dismiss, the Tribunal granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss concerning the alleged actions by Respondent’s counsel. Thus, the Tribunal struck the paragraph of the amended complaint that contained those allegations from the record. Tr. at 511-14. On July 19, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion for Protective Order concerning Complainant’s publishing of the videotaped depositions of three of Respondent’s witnesses. On July 21, 2019, Complainant submitted its opposition to this motion. On August 20, 2019, the Tribunal issued an Order denying Respondent’s Motion for Protective Order.