Office of Administrative Law Judges 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington, DC 20001-8002
Issue Date: 05 March 2003
Case No.: 2003-AIR-12
In the Matter of
Coleen L. Powers,
Complainant
v.
Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.,
Respondent
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND DENYING COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Background and Procedural History
This proceeding began when the Complainant, Coleen L. Powers, filed a complaint against the Respondent, Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., (Pinnacle), under the employee protection provisions of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), 42 U.S.C. Section 42121. The Complainant alleged that she was harassed and intimidated by the Respondent in retaliation for voicing concerns about flight and duty time under Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). On December 9, 2002, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) issued its findings after an investigation of the Complainant's allegations. OSHA concluded that the Respondent's actions did not rise to the level of harassment or intimidation, and that there was clear and convincing evidence that whatever actions the Respondent took were for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. OSHA dismissed the complaint.
[Page 2]
The Complainant also alleged that the Respondent violated Section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 ("Sarbanes-Oxley"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1514A, because she raised concerns about the accuracy of the Respondent's on-time flight records and the fraudulent impact they had on stockholders. OSHA noted that the Respondent was not a publicly traded company, and that its impact on Northwest Airlines, a parent company, was questionable at best. OSHA further noted that there was no evidence of a material impact on stock worth or an adverse action. OSHA also dismissed this complaint.
On January 7, 2003, the Complainant requested a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The Complainant indicated that she was seeking relief under AIR 21 and Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as "the environmental whistleblower laws." The Complainant also styled the caption of her claim as "Ms. Coleen L. Powers v. Northwest Airlines & Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. d/b/a Northwest Airlink."
On January 31, 2003, counsel for the Respondent filed a response to my January 15, 2003 Preliminary Order, indicating, inter alia, that Pinnacle was the only respondent at the administrative level, and that counsel did not represent Northwest Airlines, Inc. in this matter. Counsel noted that the Complainant had no employment relationship with Northwest Airlines, Inc., a sister company of Pinnacle, nor did the Complainant assert that Northwest Airlines, Inc. or any of its employees took any action against her.
On February 7, 2003, the Respondent filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal and To Strike Punitive Damages Demand. The Complainant filed a response in opposition on February 7, 2003. On February 14, 2003, the Respondent filed a request for leave to file a reply.
On February 19, 2003, the Complainant filed her "Notice of Filing in Support of Complainant's February 7, 2003 Sworn Opposition to Respondents' February 7, 2003 Motions for Partial Dismissal and to Strike Punitive Damages."
On February 24, 2003, the Complainant filed an "Objection to Respondents' February 14, 2003 Letter-Motion Seeking Last Word on its own Motions, Motion to Require More Expeditious Service on Both Complainant and her Counsel and Complainant's Motion for Default Judgment Against Respondents Northwest Airlines, Inc., NWA, Inc. and Northwest Airlines Corp," and "Notice of Filing of Her Exhibit CX-2 )Respondents' Ex Parte September 26, 2002 OSHA Filing) and CX-3 (February 10, 2003 Northwest Airlink Memo on Two Management Resignations), and her Sworn Motions to Order Respondents to Adopt or Recant Respondents' "Declarations" in CX-2, Remand for Further OSHA Investigation Instanter, and/or Draw Adverse Inferences Against Respondents."
On February 27, 2003, the Complainant filed her Notice of Filing of Complainant's Exhibits CX-4, 5, 6, 7A-D, 8, 9.
After receiving leave of Court to file a reply, on February 28, 2003, the Respondent filed its Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Partial Dismissal and to Strike Punitive Damages Demand, as well as its Motion to Strike Complainant's Surrebuttal Brief.
On March 3, 2003, the Respondent filed an Answer to Complainant's Motions Filed on February 18, 2003, and Submission Regarding Notice of Hearing and Pre-Hearing Order.
On March 4, 2003, the Complainant filed a "Response to Court's Order."
1 Title 29 C.F.R. Part 18 provides that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to situations not controlled by Part 18 or rules of special application, and that an administrative law judge may take any appropriate action authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts.
2 [Editor's note: Footnote 2 is empty in the slip opinion].