Scott Reardon v. American Airlines - Retaliatory Termination Claim

United Sta tes Court of Ap peals for the Fifth Circuit ________ ____ No. 25 - 10233 ________ ____ Scott Rea rdon, Plainti ff — Appella nt, versus America n Airl ines, Inco rporat ed, Defendant — Appellee. ________ ____ ___ _____ _______ ___ Appeal fr om the United State s Distri ct Court for the Northe rn District o f Texas USDC N o. 4: 24 - CV - 370 ________ ____ ___ _____ _______ ___ Befor e Barksdal e, Willett, and Dunc an, Cir cuit Judge s. Per Curiam: At is sue i s whet her this action u nde r the fede ral Railw ay Labor Act by Scott Rear don ag ainst Ame rican Air lines, Incorp orated, for retaliator y - termin ation was properly dismiss ed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of sub ject - m atter j urisdictio n. AFFIRMED. I Reardon b egan work ing for Americ an in 19 96 at the Boston Log an Airpo rt. He held th e positio n of f acilitie s m echan ic from 2003 until h is termin ation in 2023. During the even ts giving rise to this actio n, Re ardon United S tates Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 11, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2026

No. 25 - 10233 2 was a uni on repres entat ive for the Trans port Work ers Uni on Loca l 591 (Union). American an d the Union are p arties to a co llective bar gainin g agr eement (CBA). The CBA provides, inter alia, “a met hod for the prompt and equ itable disp osition of grievan ces[] and for the e stablish ment of f air wage s, hours and work ing cond itions ” for Union - r epr ese nted e mploy ees. It als o provide s grievan ce an d arbitr ation proce dure s for wh en: U nion - repre sent ed emplo yees “b eliev e that they have b een un justly d ealt wi th” or “provi sion[s ] of [the CB A ] ha [ve] not been pr operly ap pl ied or i nterpret ed”. These proce dures req uire an emp loyee to f ollow a se ries o f steps to escalate a matter, ultimately e nabling th e employee to reque st review by the “ System Board of Adju stment/Arb itration”. In early 202 1, American r eceive d a repo rt that Rear don s tole food from Ameri can ’s Admirals Clu b in th e airpo rt. American investigate d, inter vi ewing s evera l wit nesses — including two al leged accomp lices. It then inter vi ewed Rea rdon, with a U nion repres entative pre sent, and he admitted to stealin g from the Ad mirals Club. American terminate d him and the alleged accomplice s. Reardo n utilize d the CBA’s grie vance p roce ss and, with the U nion ’s consent, ent ered i nt o a Last Cha nce Agr ee ment (LCA) with American to restore his employme nt. The LCA provi des: Reardo n’s actio ns gave American just cau se fo r his ter minatio n; and A merican “c omplie d with all provis ions of the [CBA ] betw een the Uni on and [A merica n] with re spect t o [Reardon ’s] empl oym ent”. Th e LCA furth er states: “[Reardon] a nd the Union u nderstan d and agre e that an y single in ciden t of a violatio n of [Amer ican’s] policies and pro ce dure s . . . du ring the term of this agr eemen t will be j ust cause for [Re ardon ’s] immediate termination”. The LCA term was 24 months from R eardon’s return t o wor k on 20 Dec ember 202 1. Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2026

No. 25 - 10233 3 In Octo ber 202 3, Reardon en tered th e Admirals Clu b agains t American ’s po licy. Ame rican co ntends — and Reardon disputes — t hat he also “a ttempt ed to dia gnose a prob lem wi th and/or perform work on a dishw asher within the A dmirals C lub”, w hich is o utside the sc ope of his employm ent. Tw o Unio n memb ers — R eardon’ s direct su pervisors — repo rted his vio lation to American. Upo n its meetin g with Re ardon, he admitted to en terin g the Adm irals Club. The Senior M anager of Facility Maintena nce ter minat ed him on 3 N ovemb er 20 23 for violating th e LCA. Reardon filed this actio n agains t Ame rican u nde r the R ailway Lab or Act (RLA) f or retalia tory termina tion, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Third & Fourth. After Americ an mov ed to dis miss, Reardo n fil ed his Firs t Amen ded Complain t (FAC), contain ing the sam e retaliator y - termin ation claim. American move d to dism iss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(1) and, alternative ly, under 12(b)(6) (f ailure to state claim). It ass erte d Reard on’s claim was a “minor ” disput e under the RLA, thereby subjectin g it to the e xclusiv e arbitral p rovis ions o f th e CBA and remo ving it from fede ral jur isdiction. The district c ourt grante d A merican’ s motio n unde r Rule 1 2(b)(1), dism issing Reardo n’s claim. II Reardo n challe nges the co urt’s: evaluating his claim u nde r Rule 12(b)(1), r ather than und er 12(b)(6); and dism issing his claim as a “m inor” dispute falling o utside i ts subject - matte r juris diction. The RLA “governs lab or re lation s in the railroad and airline industr ies”. Sw. A irlin es P ilots As s’n v. Sw. Air lines C o., 120 F. 4th 474, 4 80 (5th Cir. 202 4). It pro vides two tracks for reso lving viol ations of i ts provis ions, depe nding on w hether a disput e is “major” or “min or”. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Int’l Ass ’n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Trans p. Worker s – Tran sp. Div., 973 F.3d 3 26, 334 (5t h Cir. 20 20). “Ma jor and mi nor do not necess aril y Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2026

No. 25 - 10233 4 refe r to impor tant and unimp ortant d isputes, or sign ificant and insign ificant issues; rathe r, the te rms refer to the bargainin g context in which a dispute arises. ” S w. Airlin es Pilots A ss’n, 120 F. 4th a t 480 (citation o mitted). Ma jor disput es conc ern “t he f ormati on of [CBA s] or eff orts t o secur e the m”. Id. (citatio n omitte d). Minor dispute s “conte mplate [] the existence of a [CBA ]” and “re late [] either to the meaning or proper applicatio n of a particular p rovis ion”. Id. at 481 (citation om itted). LCA s su pplement, and even supersede, CBA s “becaus e [th ey] refle ct [] the partie s’ ow n constru ction of the CBA ”. Int’l U nion of Op er ating Eng ’rs, Lo c. 351 v. C ooper Nat. Res., Inc., 163 F.3d 91 6, 919 (5 th Cir. 199 9). U nder t he RLA, d istrict courts h ave s ubject - matter ju risdiction over majo r dispute s “to enjoin a violatio n of th e stat us qu o pend ing completio n of the required procedure s”. Wright v. Unio n Pac. R.R. Co., 990 F.3 d 428, 43 5 (5th Cir. 202 1) (citation o mitted). Min or disp utes, on the other ha nd, a re “subje ct to com pulsory an d bind ing arbitrat ion before th e Nation al Railroa d Adjustm ent Bo ard”, wh ich has “ exclusive j urisdictio n . .. with two excep tions”. Sw. Airl ines Pil ots Ass’n, 120 F. 4th a t 481 (citation o mitted). The first, wh ere “ the extraj udicial dispute - resolution fr amework of t he RLA is eithe r ine ffective . . . or unavailable ”. Bh d. of Ry. Carmen (Div. of TCU) v. Atchiso n, To peka & Sant a Fe R y. Co., 8 94 F.2d 1463, 146 8 n. 10 (5t h Ci r. 1 990). The s econ d, whe re defend ant’s “actio ns refle ct antiun ion an imus or undermi ne the effecti ve funct ioning of the uni on”. Sw. Airlines Pilots As s’n, 120 F. 4th at 485 (citatio n omitted). A F irst at issue is whet her R eard on ’s FAC is revi ewed un der Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). Reardon contends: the court w as required to “assu me subje ct matter jurisdiction” and revie w the FAC u nder Rule 1 2(b)(6) because the ju risdiction al que stion is intertw ined with the me rits. Ame rican Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/11/2026

No. 25 - 10233 5 counters that the cou rt correctly applied 12(b)(1). “In either event, our revi ew is de novo. . . .” Sw. Airli nes P ilots Ass’n, 1 20 F. 4th at 481 (citation omitte d). Reardo n’s in tertw ined assertion is w holly conclus ory, an d he fails in his openi ng bri ef to addres s the applicable thr ee - facto r test, provided in fra. See In re S. Re cycl ing, L.L. C., 982 F.3d 37 4, 3 80 (5t h Ci r. 2020). Al thoug h this om ission w ould ordinar ily cons titute forfe iture o f the issue, w e noneth eless an alyze it. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4t h 393, 3 98 (5t h Cir. 2 021) (notin g “[j]urisd iction al arguments are o ne obvio us exception ” to genera l for feit ure ru le). Typically, a mo tion to dism iss und er Rule 12(b)(1) is addr esse d firs t when, as in this instan ce, it is filed in c onjuncti on with a moti on to dismis s under 12(b)(6). Sw. Airlines Pi lots Ass’n, 120 F.4t h at 481. “ [W] hen t he i ssu e of ju risdiction is in tertw ined with the m erits”, h oweve r, courts “should deal with th e objectio n as a dire ct attack o n the merits of. . . plaintiff’s cas e under. . . 12(b)(6) ”. M.D.C.G. v. Un ited St ates, 956 F.3d 762, 7 68 – 69 (5t h Cir. 2020) (citation omitte d). In dete r mining wh ether ju risdiction and th e merits are intertwined, courts co nside r wh ether: “the statutory source of jurisdictio n diffe rs from the so urce o f the fede ral claim ”; “th e ju risdiction al issu e can be extricated from the merits and tried as a separate issue”; and “jud icial econ omy favors early r esolu tion of the jurisdictio nal issue”. S. Recycling, 982 F.3d at 380 (citatio n omitte d). Reardon’ s conte ntion fails, ba se d on balancin g thes e three factors. The first — whether the statu tory so urce of ju risdiction diffe rs fro m the so urce of th e fede ral claim — favors Reardon. The sourc e of hi s retaliator y - term ination c laim is the RLA, and the district cou rt has jurisd iction o nly if h is claim: is a majo r dispute; or falls w ithin o ne of the two Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/11/2026

No. 25 - 10233 6 minor - dispute e xceptions. In either case, jurisdiction is under the RL A. S ee supra. Altho ugh this factor “go es a lo ng way tow ards establishing t hat the issues ar e inte rtwin ed”, it i s not disposi tive. Pickett v. Tex. T ech Univ. Health Scis. Ct r., 37 F.4th 1013, 1031 (5th Cir. 2022). Regardin g the s econd factor, the j urisdicti onal question can be extricate d from the merits. This “q uestion turns o n whethe r the legal issues are identical ”. Id. (citation om itted) (emphasis in o rigina l). Re ardo n’s retaliator y - term ination c laim is p redicate d on his ter mination under the LCA, which is se parate an d distin ct from the j urisdictio nal issu e of w hethe r his claim co nsti tutes a mino r dispute and whether an ex ception ap plies. Finally, jud icial econ omy weigh s against Re ardon. Judicial eco nomy favors “r esolvin g cont ested fact issue s at the p leadin g stage w here, f or instance, the jurisdict ional q uestio n is much simp ler th an the merits questi on”. Id. Reardo n’s claim meets th at standard. Whether his claim constitu tes a m inor disp ute and whether an exce ption applies is a question of law that sh ould b e decided f irst to “p revent[] [th e ] court. . . from prem aturely dismissin g [his] case ” on the merit s. Rammin g v. Un ited St ates, 28 1 F.3d 1 58, 161 (5th Cir. 2001); see also St eel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998); Shir ley v. Maxicar e Tex., Inc., 921 F.2 d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 1 991). Because t wo of the t hree factors refle ct the j urisdictio nal and merits questi ons a re no t int ertwi ned, we r eview Rea rdon’s FAC under Rule 12(b)(1). B Reardo n asse rts the d istrict co urt had juris dictio n becau se: the parties agreed to f orgo the CBA ’s arbitral pro cedur e, by in stead agreein g on the LCA; and he pleaded a dire ct violatio n of the RLA — not a minor dispute. Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/11/2026

No. 25 - 10233 7 In the alternative, he con tends his claim fa lls within th e anim us exce ption for a minor dispute. Ther e are t wo types of attac ks against a court’s subje ct - matter jurisd iction: “facial” a nd “f actual”. Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2 d 521, 523 (5th C ir. 1981). The former challenge s subject - matte r ju risdiction on the pleadin gs alone, and the court must p resume th e factual alle gation s in the complain t are tru e. Id. In a f actual a ttack, “ defe ndan t submits af fidavits, tes timony, or o ther evide ntiary m aterials”. Id. Plaintiff th en must “su bmit facts th rough some evidenti ary m ethod an d has the b urde n of pr ovi ng by a pr epondera nce of t he evide nce th at the trial court does h ave sub ject matte r juris diction ”. Id. “Becau se at issue in a factual 12(b)(1) motion is the trial cou rt’s ju risdiction. . . there is substantial au thority that the. . . court is free to we igh the evide nce an d satisfy its elf as to the existence o f its p owe r to he ar the case.” Kling v. Heber t, 60 F.4th 28 1, 284 (5th Cir. 2023) (citatio n om itted). The district c ourt’s reso lution of disputed f acts und er a factu al atta ck is revie wed for clear error. Id. American made a fact ual attac k on Re ardon ’s FAC by submittin g seven exhibits w ith its motion to dismiss — the LCA, CBA, the A dmirals Club guide lines, and four emplo yee declar ations. Accordin gly, we review the FAC under th at standard. 1 Reardo n first co ntends the par ties agre ed to exclud e dispu tes concerning the LCA from the CBA ’s gr iev ance p roce dures, t hereb y remo ving his claim from man datory arbitratio n un der the RLA. H e points to the followin g language of the LCA in s uppor t: “[Rea rdon] and th e Unio n agree n ot to challenge [Reardo n]’s sus pension, te rmin ation, o r discipline giving r ise to this Agre ement, or the te rms of th is Agre emen t, via the Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/11/2026

No. 25 - 10233 8 contractu al grie vance p roced ure set f orth in the [CBA ] betwee n [Amer ican] and the U nion”. As not ed, t he CBA ’s grievance p roce dure inclu des, inter alia, “appeal[s ] to the System Bo ard of Adj us tmen t/Arbitratio n”. In CareFlit e v. Office a nd Pr ofessional Em ploye es Inte rnational U nion, AFL- CIO, a quor um of our court held parties to a CB A may con tractually agree to exclude cer tain grievan ces fr om a CB A ’s arbitration req uireme nts. 612 F. 3d 314, 316 (5th Cir. 2010). Rear don and A m erican m ade such an agr eement beca use t he LCA dictates the CBA ’ s gri eva nce pr ocedu res — includin g arbitr ation —do not gov ern, inter alia, “t he terms of [t he LCA ]”. Accord ingly, be cause Reardon’s dispute turns on a t erm of t he L CA — wheth er he was fired for just caus e — his claim is no t arbitrab le. Although t he two - jud ge pa nel i n CareFli te h eld dis putes can be contractu ally exclu ded f rom RLA - required arbitrat ion, it d iverge d on the jurisd ictional e ffect o f th at ruling. Compare id. at 322 – 23 (Dennis, J., c oncurri ng), wit h id. at 325 (Elrod, J., c onc urring). Judge Den nis, in co nside ring w hether an ar bitratio n - exclu ded dispute can be minor, reaso ned th at “[o]nce th e parties have agree d to [exclude disputes from gr ievance procedures], any excluded disput e does not ari se from any ri ght conferred b y the CB A ” a nd is therefor e not minor. Id. at 323 (Dennis, J., c oncur ring); s ee Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Lab. E xecs. ’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 303 (1989) (holdin g minor d ispute s are tho se “arising or growing out of” CBA (citation o mitted)). The refore, under hi s approach, federal courts retain subject - matte r jur isdiction over such disputes. Judge Elr od (now C hief Judg e), on the ot her hand, would n ot hol d arbitratio n - excluded disputes are, b y definiti on, not minor. CareFlite, 612 F.3d at 325 (Elrod, J., concu rring). Rather, she wou ld analyz e them as a court wo uld any othe r RLA dispute— under t he maj or/minor di spute framewor k. See id. Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/11/2026

No. 25 - 10233 9 We agr ee wi t h the latt er approach. Acco rdingly, j urisdictio n exis ts only if Reardo n’s claim: is a maj or dispute; or is a mino r dispute falling within an exce ption. 2 Reardo n contend s his claim is no t a mino r dispu te becau se he p leaded a direct vio lation of the RLA. Our co urt looks to th e “ar guable bas is” test in dete r mining wh ether a dispu te is min or. Sw. Airl ines Pilo ts Ass’ n, 120 F.4th at 483. “Un der that te st, a dispute is m inor if. . . [defendan t] has a t least an arguable basis for its co nduct in the expre ss and im plied te rms of the parties’ [CBA ].” Id. (citation omitte d). “The distingu ishing f eature of a minor dispute is that th e dispu te may be con clusively r es olv ed by interp reting th e existing [CBA ].” Car mona v. Sw. Airl ines Co., 536 F.3d 344, 348 (5th C ir. 200 8) (citation omitte d). Def endant car ries a “r elatively light burd en” to show a dispute is mino r. BNSF, 973 F.3d at 335 (citation omitte d). As noted supra, Reardon’s L CA s upplement s, and even supersedes, the CBA. See Int’l Union o f Oper ating E ng’rs, 1 63 F.3d at 919. And Reardo n’s claim is conc lusively resolve d by interpr eting h is LCA — n amely, wheth er Am eric an t ermin ated him for cau se. H e does not di spu te he en ter ed the A dmirals Club, which, as a non - tr avelin g emp loyee, is a b asis for termina tion u nder the LCA. Accord ingly, Amer ican had an “arguable basis” under the LCA / CBA for its action. S w. Airl ines Pil ots Ass’n, 120 F.4th at 483. More o ver, action s i nvolvi ng “ RLA claims o f re taliatory f iring based on un ion affilia tion .. . are routin ely tr eated as min or disputes, in which judicial in terve ntion is app ropriate only if an exce ption applies”. Id. at 484; see Wright, 990 F.3 d at 435 (conclu ding disp ute m inor wh ere plain tiff conte nded retaliato ry - firin g claim w as “inde pendent o f the gover ning [CBA ]”); Atchis on, 894 F.2d at 1467 – 69 (rejecting p laintif f’s asse rtio n that Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/11/2026

No. 25 - 10233 10 dispute was under RL A directly). American the refore carries its “relati vely light burden” of sho wing the disput e is minor. Sw. Airlin es Pilo ts Ass’n, 120 F.4th at 483 (citation om itted); see Wright, 990 F.3d at 435 (“If the re is an y doubt as to whe ther a dispu te is m ajor o r minor a cou rt will co nstrue [it] to be min or.” (citatio n om itted)). 3 For Reard on ’s alternative con ten tion — his claim fa lls within the animus e xception to a minor d ispute — that “exception encompass es direct attacks on the un ion, as we ll as mor e clandes tine attemp ts to punish employe es for their union as socia tions”. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainm en v. Uni on Pac. R.R. C o., 3 1 F. 4th 33 7, 342 (5th Cir. 202 2). It i s invoke d only “in exce ptional cir cumstan ces”. Id. at 345 (citation omitte d). Consiste nt with this stan dard, Rea rdon alleges in his FAC that hi s termin ati on was “ dri ven by a nti - uni on ani mus a risi ng out of [hi s] act ions as a Unio n represen tative wh o repeated ly engage d in wor kplace issue s that involv ed Union a nd bargaining unit matte rs of in terest to the result of becom ing a tho rn in [American’ s] side ”. Similarly, he allege s “[t]he effe ct of [Ame rican]’s actions at issu e he re was to inte rfere with the union’ s intern al affair s by for cing out it s chosen thor n - in - th e- side Un ion repre s entative bas ed on fals e and m endacio us policy - violatio n accusa tions”. The d istrict cour t foun d the f ollow ing re garding th e factual b asis of Reardo n’s claim: “h e was term inated after a violati on of the LC [A ]”; his “then - f ell ow emplo yees who are th e source of [Ameri can] ’s alleged an ti - union ani mus .. . are t hemselv es for mer me mbers of the uni on”; a nd “th e two employ ees, bot h u nion memb ers, w ho were a lso pl aced on an L CA for stealing f ood fr om the Ad mirals Club complied with th eir LCA s and remai n present ly employ ed with [Am erican]”. For t h e followi ng reasons, the court did no t clearly e rr in so findin g. Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/11/2026

No. 25 - 10233 11 In respo nse to A merica n’s m otion t o di smiss, Reardon did n ot count er its exhib its w ith his own — an om ission f atal to the jurisdiction al alle gations in his FAC, as quot ed supra. See Pater son, 644 F.2d at 523 (holding 12(b)(1) factual at tack require s plaintif f to “ submit f acts through some evidentiary method”); Kling, 60 F.4th at 28 5 (holdin g district cour t did no t clearly e rr in its juris dictional f actf inding where p laintiff did not pre sent coun ter evide nce). Acco rdingly, his co nclusor y allegation s do n ot establish anti - union anim us. See Ev ans v. T ubbe, 657 F. 2d 661, 663 (5th Ci r. 1981) (“[W]he n a factual a ttack is made up on fe deral jurisd iction, no pr esumptive truthfu lness attac hes to. . . plaintiffs ’ jur isdictio nal allegat ions”.). III For the for egoi ng reaso ns, the ju dgment is AF FIRMED. Case: 25-10233 Document: 48-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/11/2026