home
about the group
appellate attorneys
briefs
docket reports
oral arguments
news
contact
 
SUPREME COURT DOCKET REPORT
OCTOBER TERM 2013
DECISION ALERT


October Term, 2013

April 2, 2014

DECISION ALERT
Today the Supreme Court issued one decision, described below, of interest to the business community.


Airline Deregulation Act—Federal Preemption—Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, No. 12-462 (previously discussed in the May 20, 2013, Docket Report)

The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, as amended, provides that “a State . . . may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1). Today, in Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, No. 12-462, the Supreme Court held that the Act preempts state-law claims for breach of the implied convenient of good faith and fair dealing to the extent such claims seek to enlarge the contractual obligations voluntarily assumed by the parties.

The plaintiff passenger, respondent in the Supreme Court, sued Northwest for breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by revoking his membership in its frequent flyer program. The district court held that plaintiff’s claim was preempted by the Act. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiff’s claim was “too tenuously connected” to regulation to be preempted by the Act.

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. The Court first rejected the plaintiff’s contention that his claim falls outside the scope of the Act’s preemption provision because common law rules are “law[s], regulation[s], or other provision[s] having the force and effect of law” and because enrollment in a frequent flyer program is not related to “price, route, or service.” Based on prior interpretations of other federal statutes and the Act itself, the Supreme Court held that “the phrase ‘other provision having the force and effect of law’ includes common law claims.” Slip. op. 6–9. And because “the reason for seeking reinstatement of his membership” was “to obtain reduced rates and enhanced service,” plaintiff’s claim is related to both prices and services. Slip. op. 9–10. Turning to whether the implied covenant was imposed by state law or voluntarily assumed by the parties as allowed by American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995), the Supreme Court held that, under applicable Minnesota law, the implied covenant was imposed by state law because Minnesota does not allow parties to disclaim the obligation and because Minnesota had demonstrated that its decision to mandate the implied covenant’s application was a deliberate policy choice by creating a policy-based exception for employment contracts. Slip. op. 11–13. The Court declined to adopt Northwest’s position that implied-covenant claims should be preempted without regard to state law, holding instead that “implied covenant rules will escape pre-emption only if the law of the relevant State permits an airline to contract around those rules in its frequent flyer program agreement.” Slip. op. 13.

Today’s decision is of interest to airline carriers subject to the Airline Deregulation Act and motor carriers subject to the parallel provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, as well as participants in other regulated industries whose federal regulatory schemes contain broad preemption provisions. Airline and motor carriers may wish to evaluate whether they should implement the Supreme Court’s suggestion that carriers may avoid liability for breach of the implied covenant by disclaiming the incorporation of the implied covenant in their contracts to the extent allowed by applicable state law.

Any questions about the case should be directed to Brian D. Netter (+1 202 263 3339)in our Washington office.


Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice ordinarily distributes a Docket Report when the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and a Docket Report-Decision Alert when the Court decides such a case. We hope that you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful. We welcome feedback on them, which should be addressed to the general editors, Richard B. Katskee (at rkatskee@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3222) and Brian D. Netter (at bnetter@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3339)

Feel free to forward this message to anyone who you believe might be interested in the Decision Alert.

Please visit us at appellate.net

Mayer Brown Supreme Court Docket Reports provide information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. They are not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed.

 
 
© 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved. --  Legal Notices | Attorney Advertising

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.