Ray Gary v. The Air Group, Inc

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that WPP did not broaden preemption under the ADA
• observing that the preemption provision of 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c
• finding no express preemption because “Gary’s actions did not interrupt any scheduled flights, nor did they have the potential to ground any scheduled flights, for the simple reason that no flights were scheduled”
• analyzing whether FADA preempts plaintiff's state whistleblower claim on a motion to dismiss
• reversing and holding that plaintiff’s state law whistleblower claim was not “related to” the “service of an air carrier” within the meaning of the ADA, and therefore plaintiff’s retaliation claim was not preempted by the ADA
• “Congress’ silence renders its intent “ambiguous” at best and thus should not serve as a basis for expanding ADA preemption.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).