US Supreme Court declines to take up California airlines' meal-and-rest break rules case

US Supreme Court declines to take up California airlines' meal-and-rest break rules case

The flight attendants contended that the estimated additional cost would only be $100 per flight

The US Supreme Court has refused to insulate airlines from California's meal and rest break requirements. It left intact the appeals court ruling that Alaska Airlines said meant a 'nationwide tumult' for the industry.

The Justices, let stand a damage award against Virgin America (now a part of Alaska), in a class-action suit by California-based flight attendants. Alaska contended that a federal airline law supersedes the California rules.

Alaska and the aviation industry had said that the appeals court ruling would force the airlines to add additional crew to many flights at a time when companies are already suffering from a labor shortage. The absence of a definitive ruling from the court does not resolve the conflict between the state and federal laws.

According to the airlines for America, the lobbying group for major US carriers, it could result in a patchwork of costly and conflicting regulations.

The trade group stated, "We expect that other cases involving state meal-and-rest-break laws will present the US Supreme Court with similar legal questions. It will be increasingly clear that these laws affect airlines' prices, routes, and services and should be pre-empted."

The flight attendants maintained that the industry had overstated the impact of the ruling, issued by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The flight attendants having a union backing, argued, "Alaska can easily avoid all of the supposed catastrophic effects of the decision through the simple expedient of adding an additional flight attendant to some of its longer intra-state flights so that they can rotate the breaks."

A federal trial judge had awarded $1.4 million to the flight attendants for their rest-break claims as part of a broader wage-and-hour lawsuit against the airline.

However, Sara Nelson, the President of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, the largest flight attendants' union, stated, "There is no reason we cannot come to an agreement with the airlines for a legislative technical fix that allows airlines to comply with the California meal-and-rest rules while maintaining the operation. We are ready to resolve this, and we hope they too will get serious with us about doing that now."

California laws say that workers get a break during which they are off duty (at least every five hours). The requirement is tricky for airlines because federal regulations mandate that flight attendants be always ready to handle emergencies and remain on duty for critical phases of the flight, more so, during landings and takeoffs.

But Alaska explained the law was problematic, as flight attendants could not have any duties during the breaks and must be free to leave the aircraft, regardless of where it was located or what happened on a flight.

After the court's ruling, the airlines said, "We are carefully evaluating how to balance the California law with the federal rules that cover airline crew duties."

Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden's administration urged the Supreme Court to either reject the appeal or send the case back to the appeals court for a second look. The administration said it was not clear that California's law precluded flight attendants from being on call to handle emergencies even during their state-required breaks.

The legal question here arises whether the California meal-and-break requirements run afoul of the US Airline Deregulation Act, which precludes state laws that are 'related to a price, route or service of an air carrier.'

While the case involves only flight attendants, airlines say they fear it opens the door to mandatory rest breaks for pilots, who are permitted to eat and take restroom breaks during the low-workload periods. But on typical domestic flights, they are expected to be always on duty in the event of an emergency.