Background
Andrew DesOrmeaux, a pilot employed by Kalitta Air since May 2018, sought exemptions from the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. After experiencing a severe reaction to his first vaccine dose in July 2021, DesOrmeaux claimed medical grounds for exemption. In September 2021, he tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, demonstrating immunity. He also submitted a religious accommodation request based on his beliefs regarding bodily autonomy.
In October 2021, Kalitta implemented a vaccine mandate in compliance with Executive Order 14042 (federal contractor requirements). Employees requesting medical or religious exemptions would be placed on unpaid leave beginning December 8, 2021, with termination or voluntary resignation as the only alternatives. DesOrmeaux provided extensive evidence showing he met entry requirements for every country where Kalitta operated. The district court dismissed his retaliation claims and granted summary judgment on his discrimination claims, finding all claims preempted by the Railway Labor Act under the prior Odell v. Kalitta Air precedent.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of DesOrmeaux’s Title VII and ADA retaliation claims (Counts I and III) because he failed to adequately brief these arguments before the district court, thereby forfeiting appellate review. The court similarly affirmed summary judgment on the perceived disability discrimination claim (Count IV), finding DesOrmeaux presented no arguments distinguishing his situation from the Odell plaintiffs.
However, the court reversed summary judgment on the ADA failure to accommodate claim (Count II) and state law discrimination claims (Counts V and VI). The court identified a material factual distinction: while Odell plaintiffs sought scheduling modifications allowing unvaccinated pilots to fly to specific destinations, DesOrmeaux sought recognition that his COVID-19 immunity qualified him to fly any scheduled route without a second vaccine dose. This distinction created genuine disputes of material fact about whether interpreting the collective bargaining agreement would be necessary to assess whether his accommodation was reasonable and feasible.
The court emphasized that Railway Labor Act preemption is not automatic; courts must examine whether granting a specific accommodation would require CBA interpretation. DesOrmeaux presented evidence supporting his position that Kalitta’s scheduling system need not be altered to accommodate him. Because material factual disputes existed, summary judgment was improper, and the case was remanded for trial.
Key Takeaways
- Railway Labor Act preemption requires a showing that the CBA must conclusively resolve the dispute or that its interpretation is inextricably intertwined with the claim—general reliance on precedent is insufficient when factual distinctions exist.
- An employee claiming immunity status as a basis for vaccine exemption may pursue accommodation claims distinct from those seeking schedule modifications, depending on whether the CBA must be interpreted.
- Parties forfeit arguments not adequately briefed at the district court level, even if those arguments have merit, unless failure to consider them would cause a miscarriage of justice.
- Employers cannot rely solely on prior adverse precedent to obtain summary judgment; they must address factual distinctions plaintiffs present regarding the scope and nature of requested accommodations.
Why It Matters
This decision reopens the door for airline industry employees to litigate certain COVID-19 vaccine accommodation claims that may not require collective bargaining agreement interpretation. While the Odell precedent appeared to categorically preclude accommodation-based discrimination claims for airline employees, DesOrmeaux establishes that the analysis must be fact-intensive. Employers cannot simply point to a prior adverse ruling without engaging with specific factual evidence about accommodations that do not implicate CBA terms—a significant limitation on summary judgment in Railway Labor Act contexts.
The decision also reinforces the importance of thorough appellate briefing: DesOrmeaux’s failure to adequately argue his retaliation claims and perceived disability claim before the district court cost him meaningful relief on those counts, even though the court identified potential merit in his approaches. For future litigants, the case underscores that factual evidence about eligibility, destination requirements, and operational feasibility must be developed at trial unless clearly foreclosed by applicable law.