Trial News

In a precedential decision, the Third Circuit revived American Airlines pilots’ class action suit alleging that the airline unlawfully denied pilots pay for short-term military leave. Reversing an order granting summary judgment to American Airlines, the court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that short-term military leave is comparable to jury duty or bereavement leave. (Scanlan et al. v. Am. Airlines Grp. Inc., 102 F. 4th 164 (3d Cir. 2024).)

James Scanlan, a retired major general in the Air Force Reserve, and Carla Riner, a brigadier general in the Delaware Air National Guard, represent a class of pilots who worked for the airline and took short-term military leave between Jan. 1, 2013, and Oct. 31, 2021. Scanlan and Riner sued American Airlines, alleging the defendant violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) “by failing to pay pilots for short-term military leave despite paying pilots for periods of jury-duty and bereavement leave” and “by failing to credit pilots under the profit-sharing plan for their imputed earnings during short-term military leave despite crediting earnings from periods of jury-duty and bereavement leave.” The pilots also claimed the airline breached its contractual obligations by failing to credit pilots for their earnings during periods of military leave for profit-sharing calculations.

The district court granted summary judgment for the airline, finding that short-term military leave is not comparable to jury duty or bereavement leave due to differences in duration, frequency, purpose, and control over the leave timing. Additionally, the court sided with the airline regarding the exclusion of military leave from profit-sharing calculations, interpreting the profit-sharing plan’s terms as not covering imputed income from military leave.

On appeal, the Third Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that American Airlines did not breach its profit-sharing plan but reversed summary judgment on the USERRA claims. With respect to the USERRA claims, the court held that there were genuine factual disputes regarding the comparability of short-term military leave to jury duty and bereavement leave. The court noted that the issue of “comparability is critical to the pilots’ USERRA claims” and that the three comparability factors mentioned in the implementing regulation—duration, purpose, and control—could be reasonably interpreted by a jury to support the pilots’ claims.

The court stressed that while military leave, on average, might be longer and more frequent than jury duty or bereavement leave, a jury could still find the average leave durations comparable, with military leave averaging about 3.3 days per instance and jury duty and bereavement leave averaging between 1.8 and 2.7 days. Additionally, the court noted that both military leave and jury duty could serve a common public purpose—civic duty—despite differences such as jury duty being compulsory and for minimal pay. The court said there was conflicting evidence about the level of control pilots have over scheduling their military leave, which could be similar to the lack of control over jury duty and bereavement leave.

Washington, D.C., attorney R. Joseph Barton, one of the attorneys representing the pilots, said, “This is the third appellate decision that directly addresses how to analyze whether other leaves are comparable to short-term military leave and the provision of equal treatment under USERRA. USERRA ensures that those members of the military who take leave from their employers are not disadvantaged when they do so. The involvement and initiative of class representatives James Scanlan and Carla Riner have been instrumental in ensuring that these rights are protected. These cases illustrate the importance and effectiveness of class actions generally in protecting worker’s rights and specifically in the context of USERRA.”