FMLA Violation – Collective Bargaining Agreement – Arbitration

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: John F. Cloutier v. GoJet Airlines, LLC,

Case No.: 19-1322; 19-1773; 19-1823; 19-3279

Officials: FLAUM, MANION, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: FMLA Violation – Collective Bargaining Agreement – Arbitration

Plaintiff-appellee and cross-appellant John F. Cloutier was a pilot for defendant-appellant and cross-appellee GoJet Airlines, LLC. Cloutier learned he had type II diabetes on June 2, 2014, which meant he could not resume flying for GoJet until the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) confirmed he could safely return. During this period—in which Cloutier took medication and underwent medical testing necessary for FAA approval—GoJet granted Cloutier medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Once GoJet determined that Cloutier would not be able to return to flying within the maximum twelve weeks of leave to which he was entitled, however, GoJet terminated him.

This dispute first arose when Cloutier filed a grievance asserting FMLA violations pursuant to the “Collective Bargaining Agreement” between GoJet and his union. The parties battled in arbitration to no avail. Then turning to the courts, Cloutier initiated this complex lawsuit, suing GoJet for violations of the FMLA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The jury reached a verdict in Cloutier’s favor, finding GoJet had interfered with his FMLA rights and retaliated against him for exercising his FMLA rights. The district court then granted him back pay, liquidated damages, and front pay.

On appeal, as it did below, GoJet presents an array of issues for our consideration. GoJet argues that this dispute should never have been allowed in litigation because the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement required them to arbitrate FMLA claims. Failing that, GoJet asserts that the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law on several different grounds. For his own part, Cloutier cross-appealed to present an additional set of issues attacking the district court’s findings and calculations connected to Cloutier’s damages award. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Associate Corporate Counsel, IP at Amazon.