There’s been a rash of lawsuits by flight attendants against airlines for paying them exactly what their union contract proscribes. Airlines negotiate with their unions over wages nationwide (most of Delta is non-union, though). But flight attendants travel to states with different rules, and they’re even ‘based’ in states like California, Illinois or New Jersey even if they don’t work there.
The cases have been using state laws on overtime to sue, arguing that time that’s unpaid in their contracts (or paid at lower wages) like time ‘at work’ at the airport should count as hours worked and they should be getting time and a half on their regular wages for it, even though their union negotiated pay agreements with higher wages that work differently.
Last week American Airlines failed to get one of these cases dismissed in Illinois, Nicholas Greve and Jeffrey Nissen v. American Airlines, Inc. (No. 1:26-cv-00626, in the Northern District of Illinois).
- Illinois makes overtime mandatory and non-waivable. An employer cannot employ an employee for more than 40 hours in a work week without overtime “at a rate not less than 1 1/2 times the regular rate.”
- The federal Fair Labor Standards Act has an overtime exemption for airlines but it does not bar state law claims for overtime.
- Illinois law allows an employee to recover treble the underpayment plus 5% of the underpayment for each month after the payment date during which the underpayment remains unpaid, and they can go back three years.
Under Illinois law, maybe even American’s new boarding for flight attendants pay might be illegal? Time over 40 hours in a week must be paid at 1.5 times the regular rate. But boarding pay is at 50% of ‘regular rate’.
It seems like even calculating what “hours worked” means and what “regular rate” is (since there are multiple rates of pay for different kinds of work in the contract), in order to determine unpaid overtime, would require interpreting the terms of the union contract, rather than just looking at pay stubs.
And if that is the case, the suit is likely to be dismissed, with arguments having to follow a Railway Labor Act process rather than Illinois state law. That’s not a guarantee in the initial stages of the suit, but seems probabilistically the most likely outcome to. Pursuing the suit still makes sense because if it survives long enough the likelihood of extracting a settlement rises.
- A state law claim isn’t preempted just because a collective bargaining agreement is relevant or needs to be consulted, just when the court has to actually interpret disputed terms of the union contract to resolve the claim. So if they can just look at information on a pay stub – how many hours were worked, what was paid, and whether state law required more – the case can proceed.
- However Adames v. Executive Airlines was pre-empted because Puerto Rico flight attendant overtime claims required interpreting the things like flight time, on-duty time, guarantees, base pay, overtime pay, and industry practices.
- And flight attendant compensation at a large network airline isn’t just an hourly wage system. The negotiated package has flight hour rates, duty periods, report times, release times, reserve rules, trip rigs, minimum guarantees, premium pay, boarding pay, deadhead rules, reassignment rules, and monthly guarantees.
- Deciding whether a flight attendant was underpaid for work means figuring out which hours would go into a base 40 and which would constitute overtime since boarding pay in the contract is at 50% of flight pay.
And even counting report time and boarding time and deplaning as work, flight hour rates, guarantees, duty rigs, trip minimums, and negotiated premiums take that time into account in their rates. The real relevant question in wage laws is was an employee paid enough for the work that they did?
It’ll also be tough to ultimately defend ‘all Chicago based flight attendants’ (for instance) as a class, because flight attendants are traveling all sorts of different schedules, a duty starts in one state, and ends in another, and involves international travel and that’s mostly paid flight hours and domestic short hops that involves a lot more boarding time or long sits. Some are lineholders and others sit reserve.
Nonetheless I’ve written about a case like this against United and against Southwest.
It’s become a cottage industry to take on union contracts for offering insufficient pay. That’s a weird place to find ourselves in 2026.
Cool. Good for them. Use our legal system to get money. Pay workers more. Protect consumers from greedy corporations. Fund healthcare, retirement, housing, education. And, most importantly, stay human. (Or… keep fluffing for oligarchs, who want you ‘gone’ once they have AI robots capable of doing all ‘labor’ instead.)
SCOTUS should end this craziness. You can’t cherry pick state laws when a union has negotiated a national contract. Federal transportation law should also prevail. This is why people hate peoplr always looking for an angle and to have their hand out.
Other option is cut this hours or fire them and only hire employees in more friendly states. Would serve them right!
@Retired Gambler — Act fast, 6-3 can decide anything you’d like, so long as you continue to bribe them, legally. Totally unrelated, it is not a bus or an RV… it is a motor coach!!
My father was a founding member of the United Auto Workers and a sit-downer in 1937. My brother was on the negotiating team for the UAW in the 1960’s. Both were obviously very pro-union and pro-workers’ rights, yet both said the dynamics shifted in the later years as lawyers started taking over. While they viewed contracts as something that both sides could accept and was beneficial to the overall well-being of the company and employees, the lawyers took a scorched earth philosophy. It became about getting everything and screw the company’s well-being and future survivability. This reeks of such a move – get mine and screw everyone else. But the Lawyers will get their paycheck, and that is all that matters.
@Ron — So, abolish unions because lawyers-bad? Naw… that sounds like astroturfing for management/corporate.
Subject them to state and local taxes wherever they fly to.
@Coffee Please — Do religious organizations next! No reason they shouldn’t pay, too, especially as many are acting partisan anyway. Fair is fair.
I am all in on religious organizations paying taxes.
@Coffee Please — Deal. The First Amendment isn’t a tax exemption, and it certainly isn’t a license to mandate theocracy. It protects your right to practice a faith, and your equal right to reject it entirely. Anyone using it to force their beliefs on the public is either constitutionally illiterate, or a bad-faith actor using freedom as a mask for control.
Why not go full on socialist like the Illinois dems are now proposing to do with the Bears. Just have Pritzger assume ownership of the team, and airlines, in the name of the citizens of the state. About time the workers get to enjoy the same level of pay, benefits and quality of life all the workers in the old Soviet Union enjoyed before the west cheated and ruined the workers paradise.
The IRS does have pretty specific guidelines about what non-profits including religious organizations can do in order to keep their tax-exempt status.
As with most things, most churches are pretty restrained in their political discussion precisely for this reason. The notion that there is widespread political commentary by churches and religious organizations is fantasy.
and the commentary about lawyers is absolutely valid. Airline labor law is extraordinarily complex and airline operations touch virtually every large governmental jurisdiction at all levels.
The Supreme Court does need to weigh in on the ability of local and state governments to regulate crew compensation and the only reason it hasn’t been settled is because no one is willing to spend the money to litigate the complexity. This isn’t the first case involving airlines and local regulations but cases like this will keep spreading until there are clear limits of what can and can’t be taxed and regulated
and the competitive issue is that, if AA loses, UA loses far more given its larger size at ORD. As a percentage of its workforce, UA has a far higher percentage of employees than any other airline based in “blue states” that are trying to stem the outflow of tax revenue.
@jcil — Dude #47 is literally nationalizing companies (Golden shares of Intel)… he’s the most socialist president in my lifetime… national socialist!
@Tim Dunn — Can’t wait for Delta’s flight attendants, baggage handlers, and maintenance technicians to finally join their dispatchers and pilots (since 1934!) in organizing! Enough of the union-bashing on here…
“It protects your right to practice a faith, and your equal right to reject it entirely. Anyone using it to force their beliefs on the public is either constitutionally illiterate, or a bad-faith actor using freedom as a mask for control.”
Perfect! This from an individual who routinely “cherry-picks” the 1st Amendment to suit his needs. What a hypocrite.
@Mike P — The lady doth protest too much, methinks…
(Classic Mike P-ness…)
So, you don’t have anything to refute my point? Also, could your play on words be any more infantile? Not that we should expect much else from you.
@Mike P — Your point was too broad. Got any specific beef? Did the Neeleman Mormon thing get to you? I’m all for First Amendment, even if I disagree on matters of preference.
Illinois in a fervently anti-business state (witness the Hammond Bears) and everyone who works for a living (unless you think lawyers work) is leaving. Judge Ellis was appointed by President Obama and is profoundly liberal. Who appointed the Judge has more predictive power re outcomes than whan the law says.
@jack the ladd — Your loathing of IL/Chicago rivals @O’Hare Is My Second Homes’ affinity for it. As for “works for a living”… you mean like esteemed Concierge Key member @George Romey? As for your nihilism on the judiciary… oof.
You support unions as they’re currently structured, which represents a clear violation of the Freedom of Association, a right clearly protected under the First Amendment.
Unions violate workers’ freedom to associate with a different union, choose alternative forms of group representation, such as voluntary unions, and represent themselves in negotiations with employers. Also, the freedom to associate is denied to the employer. He is forced, by government laws, to not only recognize but negotiate with a “union” of employees. Further, a number of those employees have never had the opportunity to even decide whether or not to be part of the union.
As I’ve pointed out many times in the past, you are constantly arguing for freedom of speech, not only on this site but in society in general. There is no way you can rationalize those opposing positions without violating your principles. The charge remains; you’re a hypocrite!
Gary, et al:
I never tire of reading these opposing views from what seem to be intelligent, knowledgeable writers. It’s almost as if you’re all hired by Mr. Leff to make this column interesting. Actors, playing opposing roles.
And it’s seems that each writer has strong views, and there seems to be a “friendly” (and oft times sarcastic) back and forth.
Thank you, Gary, for gathering these combatants of the pen to your column. I never tire of reading your column.
Joe D (the reader who previously complained (nay perhaps commented) about the political news being thrown into a travel site, and was lambasted for it.)
But I suppose it could be worse. It could be a political site where participants throw in travel issues.
@Mike P — Oof. Misusing the First Amendment to try to ironically prevent freedom of assembly, organizing, collective bargaining is a farce in and of itself, which you’ve tried before, but is not recognized as a valid legal argument anywhere. You basically approach ‘sovereign citizen’ level on this dribble each time…
@Joey D — (Or should I say, “Joe D”) A political site where they kvetch about frequent flier programs. Delightful!
“…which you’ve tried before,…” Because it’s factual, which you have never refuted.
“…but is not recognized as a valid legal argument anywhere.” You just made my point for me. The First Amendment protects Freedom of Association, a natural right, from government intervention. Unions, as they are currently structured, violate the rights of both employees and employers.
In the simplest terms, the government has passed laws that unequivocally violate a natural right protected by the Constitution. You, by virtue of your own words, support freedom of speech but deny individuals their right to freely associate. The freedom to associate would, by definition, include the right to not associate. You can’t win this battle.
Again, the verdict is in,…You are a hypocrite!
“Misusing the First Amendment to try to ironically prevent freedom of assembly, organizing, collective bargaining is a farce in and of itself.”
Wrong! I’m not trying to prevent freedom of assembly; I’m arguing against government intervention and forcing parties to associate. I’m not anti-union, I’m anti-government force. Ironically, if I opposed the right of employees to form a union and bargain collectively with their employer, which I don’t, I would be no better than you, i.e., a hypocrite.
If state law applies to FA the what about servicemen? Amtrak? Etc
These insufferable, entitled, lazy, shameless air waitresses are just awful people. Minimum wage is too much for someone who can’t do a good job at unskilled labor.
@Mantis — Did you used to be one, but got fired? (That would explain a lot…)
@Mike P — Like usual, you conflate what you wish the law were with what it actually is. Federal labor laws are constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Forcing an employer to negotiate with a union regulates economic conduct; it doesn’t violate the First Amendment.
As for rhetorical tricks, the Pyrrhic victory of declaring your opponent “proved your point” just because they pointed out your legal theory has zero merit is… fun. (Peak Mike-P-ness!) Also, you can call everyone a hypocrite all day, but it won’t change reality.
I’ve been flying for AA for over 34 years. It was my first job with a corporation, my first with an airline and my first with a union. I had a lot to learn, about all of it. I was there (and participated in) our strike against AA in 1993, with just under two years of experience. I have seen A LOT over the years that has ultimately caused me to feel that the APFA (I can only speak for my own union) is flatly in the category of “necessary evil.” Necessary because AA has had to be convinced to pay us a fair wage, and evil because the union supports unprofessional, lazy and selfish behavior of flight attendants who find themselves in trouble with AA.
I am one of the good guys – I work hard, treat customers with respect, and as a very long-time purser I broadly focus on eliciting a calm environment on long-haul flights that encompasses not only customers, but pilots, flight attendants and gate agents too. I am good at my job, and I know it. I was raised on a farm with a hard work ethic and was taught to treat people with the respect that I desire to receive. And generally speaking I am successful at both.
So I am not at all happy that some of my union dues go to protecting those who don’t deserve it. And I am not at all happy with corruption that is ever present in the APFA. (Does our union president deserve to receive $184,000 a year? Of course not.) BUT… I know what I signed up for with a job that requires me to be a part of a union. And accept and abide by the negotiated contract – in every way. JUST LIKE every other flight attendant. Including those that ‘work out of’ or ‘are based in’ different states. For any of them to try to take advantage of a state’s law to gain an advantage over any other flight attendant is beyond self-serving. And unfair to AA.
I am neither one to take up for the APFA when it is not justified, nor likewise one to take up for AA. But in this case. our last contract negotiations resulted in (my considered and experienced opinion) very fair (read that: good) pay combined with fair work rules. I genuinely feel that I am very fairly compensated for what I do. And other flight attendants should not be able to use lawyers and legal loopholes to bilk AA out of more money. After all, we are a UNION that is supposed to stand together and work under the same contract.
I am in my last year of flying, which gives me a bit more clarity of the overall picture of what my job, union, airline and finances combine to create my work life. Being raised with a “glass half full” thankfulness, I can say that I am incredibly grateful for the experiences and financial preparation for retirement that my job has afforded me. And though this opinion would not be popular with many flight attendants, it is my hope that AA is able to successfully defend itself against these shallow (and unwarranted) lawsuits that intend to unfairly reward flight attendants who don’t deserve it.
@An Actual AA Flight Attendant — It is refreshing to hear from a long-time purser who understands that a national union means operating under the exact same contract, and that trying to carve out localized state rules undermines collective solidarity. That said, there is a massive generational divide here. As a senior line-holder, your trips look very different from a junior reserve FA who spends their day sitting through hours of unpaid boarding and ground delays. While the new contract is great at the top, it’s easy to see why junior crew members feel the contract still leaves them shortchanged for actual hours worked. It might look like an unfair legal loophole from the top of the seniority list, but from the bottom, it probably feels like fighting for basic wage protections. Either way, early-congrats on soon-to-be retirement!
@1990 – Thank you for your kind comment and congrats. I very much appreciate it. Your take on seniority inequalities is justified, with a few clarifications. Our current contract does, indeed, include boarding pay (though it is not full flight pay), and in that way junior flight attendants who work multiple flights per day earn more paid boarding hours than those of us who typically work one flight per day. As they should. And additionally the current contract does include extra pay for extended ground (“sit”) time that, as with boarding pay, is an entirely new component of compensation. That sit time pay does also apply during weather and maintenance delays.
Some FAs at the top of the seniority list are quick to point out that all of us were junior for a very long time. In my case I spent over 27 years on reserve, so I do know (of course) what “junior flying” looks and feels like. In our, and I would suspect most all, seniority-based systems it is generally accepted that you have to work through that ‘juniority’ in order to feel the better part of the job and contract.
But your take on it does have its merits, and I am all for junior FAs being fairly compensated. AS LONG AS every other one at the same seniority is treated equally. It appears to me that the lawsuits mentioned would violate that fairness. But that equality would guarantee that, as you so well stated, collective solidarity is maintained. Thank you again for your kind words.
@ 1990. I don’t loathe Chicago. Great lake, beautiful city, largely good people, some terrible people (Rahm), great museums, etc. I think it is hard to do business here. No place is only one thing or perfect. I don’t know what Mr. Romney does, but Illinois/Chicago has lost a lot of marque businesses in the last few years as well as more regular small businesses, for whom the burdens are greater. Lots of empty storefronts. Amazing how NY came back so much more quickly.. There have been actual studies regarding the judiciary that demonstrate I am right. I am a “legal realist”:. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/does-political-bias-judiciary-matter-implications-judicial-bias-studies-legal-and
Respectfully…why would Delta’s employees unionize when they have the freedom to do the best job they can under the guidelines written in their work rules? They are empowered to “stay within the box” but if they have to go outside the box, “do what is SAFE and right”. If they have a better way to do the job and it saves the company money…they get a piece of that savings “pie” in $$$. If there’s a company profit made, every Valentine’s Day they get a piece of that pie too. They are treated well, paid well and because of their hard work and LOYALTY to the company and not a union, don’t have to argue with some third party that has the party’s best interest FIRST. Unions are best used with an abusive company or…better yet….if you don’t like the job/company/pay, etc…get another job. No one’s holding you back!
@jack the ladd — Pardon my delay. Thank you for sharing that. Agreed that small business face real challenges, especially when major corporations capture certain markets. Post-pandemic vacancies still challenge NYC, but it is getting much better. Sure, judges are human, but that’s not just an Illinois-thing, and I doubt they’re intentionally ‘holding back’ the city or state economy there. I’d like to see healthy balance between capital, workers, and consumers.
@Win Whitmire — It is great that Delta has a solid profit-sharing program and high base pay, but let’s be real about why they do it: Delta keeps its non-union pay competitive because they are terrified of their non-union workforce joining pilots and dispatchers in organizing.
The problem with relying on “work rules” instead of a legally binding contract is that management can rewrite those rules whenever they want. Just look at the massive operational meltdowns from recent summer storms. When things go sideways, union contracts at other carriers protect crews from getting completely exhausted or trapped by unsafe scheduling. At a non-union shop, you just have to take it.
A union isn’t some malicious third party; it’s literally just the workers standing together so they have a real seat at the table. Capital always protects its own interests with contracts, and working people deserve the exact same legal stability. “Just quit” isn’t a real solution for people who love aviation and want to turn their hard work into a stable, lifelong career.
Am so happy the new generation of flight attendants are fighting for the right pay. In my days you took what was given and be happy your saw the world. Do you have any idea how many hours flight attendants and even pilots work for free? The excuse we got was oh your getting per diem which was between $1.50 and $2.00 per hour.I think flight attendants should be paid from show time to when the last passenger gets off the aircraft