Where a defendant employer was awarded summary judgment, that judgment must be vacated in part because the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s ADA failure to accommodate or state law claims based on Odell v. Kalitta Air, LLC, 107 F.4th 523 (6th Cir. 2024).
“Plaintiff Andrew DesOrmeaux appeals from the district court’s order and judgment in his lawsuit against Defendant Kalitta Air, LLC. DesOrmeaux sued Kalitta under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e–e-17, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12101–213, Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§37.1201–1214, and Michigan’s Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§37.2101–804. The district court dismissed DesOrmeaux’s Title VII and ADA retaliation claims for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment for Kalitta on the other claims. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Counts I and III, AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment on Count IV, REVERSE the grant of summary judgment on Counts II, V, and VI, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. …
“Plaintiff Andrew DesOrmeaux is a pilot formerly employed by Defendant Kalitta Air, LLC (‘Kalitta’). Kalitta is an air carrier, certified under the Federal Aviation Regulations, that provides cargo transportation services globally. It concedes that it is subject to regulation by the Railway Labor Act (‘RLA’), 45 U.S.C. §§151–88.
“DesOrmeaux had flown for Kalitta since May 2018 and was subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (‘CBA’) between Kalitta and the Air Line Pilots Association, International, in effect from March 1, 2021, to March 1, 2025. …
“DesOrmeaux’s appeal distills down to two issues: (1) whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims based solely on Odell; and (2) whether the district court properly dismissed the retaliation claims. …
“… The RLA precludes a claim on the basis that it is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a CBA, … when ‘the CBA must conclusively resolve the dispute.’ …
“To prevail on summary judgment, Kalitta had the burden of showing there was no genuine dispute of material fact that DesOrmeaux’s discrimination claims were inextricably intertwined with the CBA (Counts II, IV, V, and VI). …
“With all inferences drawn in his favor, DesOrmeaux has presented sufficient evidence to suggest that Odell might not control his failure to accommodate claim. …
“DesOrmeaux has shown a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the accommodation he sought differed from the accommodation requests at issue in Odell and whether it would have implicated the CBA in the same way. Therefore, Kalitta was not entitled to summary judgment on DesOrmeaux’s ADA failure to accommodate or state law claims based on Odell alone. DesOrmeaux does not, however, present any arguments as to why his ADA perceived disability discrimination claim (Count IV) differs from the analogous claim in Odell, and therefore he waives appellate review of the district court’s denial of that claim. …
“The district court erred in applying Odell to grant summary judgment to Kalitta on DesOrmeaux’s failure to accommodate and state law claims. DesOrmeaux has failed to show, however, why the district court’s application of Odell to his perceived disability discrimination claim or dismissal of his retaliation claims was improper. Therefore, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Counts I and III, AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment on Count IV, REVERSE the grant of summary judgment on Counts II, V, and VI, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”