Eleventh Circuit upholds dismissal of mass-action lawsuit against Atlas Air
Client(s) Atlas Air, Inc.
Jones Day won affirmance of the dismissal of all claims against Atlas Air, Inc. ("Atlas") by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in a published opinion. The case involved novel issues of personal jurisdiction and the application of federal statutes, the Constitution, and state tort law to an employer's response to the pandemic. Writing through Judge Grant, the Eleventh Circuit rejected each claim as legally invalid or factually insufficient, despite plaintiffs' multiple amendments to their complaint. As to plaintiffs’ assertion that Atlas's policies, which had been driven by the federal government's COVID Executive Orders, reflected a discriminatory motive against religious employees, the Court held that was "wildly implausible."
The Eleventh Circuit also addressed what it determined were "fake and hallucinated citations" in plaintiffs' counsel's briefs on appeal, as well as the legal and ethical guardrails for responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
In the district court, Jones Day secured complete dismissal of claims asserted against Atlas Air and its senior executives challenging Atlas's COVID-19 policies. Over 80 current and former employees and an associational organization originally sued Atlas in October 2022 asserting claims under Title VII, the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA), Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, state law, the Constitution and the company’s Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA). Confronted with Atlas's arguments for dismissal, Plaintiffs abandoned their GINA, CBA, and disability-related claims and dropped Atlas's executives from the case.
Earlier in the litigation, Atlas obtained a ruling from the district court that the airline was not subject to general, or all-purpose, personal jurisdiction in Florida and that the majority of the individual plaintiffs lacked a suit-related connection to Florida that would permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction over their claims. That personal jurisdiction ruling established that the Supreme Court’s Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. (2023) decision does not allow plaintiffs to rely on Florida’s long-arm statute to establish personal jurisdiction by "consent" without meeting the traditional due process test.
Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al., No. 24-11033 (11th Cir.); Estate of Lane Caviness et al v. Atlas Air, Inc. et al., 1:22-cv-23519-KMM (S.D. Fla.)
