The Texas Supreme Court on Wednesday was full of questions for lawyers on both sides of a dispute between The Boeing Company and the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association.
Initially, in May 2024, the state’s high court had declined to disturb lower court rulings that cleared the way for SWAPA, a 9,000-member labor union, to proceed with a lawsuit alleging Boeing cost it millions of dollars because of false representations about the airworthiness of the manufacturer’s 737 MAX aircraft.
But after Boeing asked the court to reconsider, the justices agreed in January and heard oral arguments in the case Wednesday morning.
Boeing’s lead appellate lawyer, Anne Johnson of Tillotson Johnson and Patton, spoke for about one minute before fielding her first question from the court and the pace of questions during the roughly 50 minutes both parties spent arguing didn’t slow down.
The crux of the case is whether the Railway Labor Act preempts the claims brought by SWAPA. Boeing says it does because deciding the case requires interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement between Southwest Airlines and its pilots. SWAPA says the RLA does not preempt its suit because the act only applies to claims between airline carriers and employees, and Boeing is not either of those.
Johnson told the court that the Dallas Court of Appeals became a “national outlier” when it held that “claims requiring interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement can proceed in state court.”
In briefing, Boeing told the court that courts across the country “are aligned on the test for RLA and [Labor Management Relations Act] preemption: If the claim requires CBA interpretation, it is preempted — no matter the parties involved.”
Justices Jeff Boyd and Brett Busby asked Johnson a series of questions aimed at determining where the idea of preemption comes from, as the RLA doesn’t mention that, and whether there would be any avenue for resolution of the dispute if the court agreed with Boeing’s preemption argument. Johnson said there is a “remedial gap” for a small number of cases like this one, involving claims against a nonsignatory to the CBA, “and this case falls into it.”
“The specific claims brought by SWAPA do not have a forum,” she said. “That doesn’t mean these pilots don’t have a remedy; they do. They have one against their employer.”
Johnson said case law supports her contention that “federal preemption can and does extinguish state tort rights and create a remedial gap.” And that makes sense, she said, because Congress intended for there to be a “uniform interpretation” of collective bargaining agreements.
“But you’re arguing for no interpretation,” Justice Busby said. “Not uniform interpretation.”
“What we’re arguing … is it should not be decided in a Dallas state court in which Southwest is not a party, what the CBA means,” she said. “This labor union wants to go into a state court and have the CBA interpreted in proceedings in which the employer is not a party.”
In March 2022, the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas sided with the union, agreeing that because the dispute wasn’t between “a carrier and its employees,” the RLA didn’t apply. Boeing has argued in briefing that the Dallas Court of Appeals’ decision is at odds with holdings from the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, which have all concluded that the RLA or Labor Management Relations Act preempts any claims requiring CBA interpretation, “even when the claim is not between a carrier and its employees.” Additionally, Boeing argued the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seven and Ninth Circuits have all determined the RLA preempts a claim “against a third-party to the CBA.”
In response to a question from Justice Debra Lehrmann, SWAPA’s lead appellate lawyer, David Coale of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, said he “firmly believe[s]” the RLA doesn’t apply to suits involving third parties, like this suit against Boeing.
“I don’t think you’re interpreting a CBA unless the people involved in the CBA are there,” he said.
Coale told the justices that SWAPA’s fraudulent inducement claim “stands alone” and doesn’t require interpretation of the CBA.
The case number is 22-0631.