Background
Exclusive Jets, LLC fired Michael Jones, a pilot, after he reported various aircraft safety issues and mechanical irregularities. An administrative law judge found the termination violated the Aviation Reform Act, and the Administrative Review Board affirmed the liability determination. The Board, however, applied a heightened standard for mitigating damages, requiring proof of gross or egregious misconduct by the employee.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the pilot’s actions constituted protected activity under the Aviation Reform Act and that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving it would have taken the same action absent the protected conduct. The court found the Administrative Review Board erred by requiring a showing of gross or egregious misconduct to toll back-pay liability. The correct standard requires the employer to prove the employee failed to exercise reasonable diligence in seeking suitable employment.
Thus, we grant in part and deny in part the petition for review and remand to the ARB with instructions to apply the correct legal standard to assess Jones’s duty to mitigate damages.
49 U.S.C. § 42121
What it means going forward
The decision clarifies that the duty to mitigate damages in Aviation Reform Act cases is based on reasonable diligence, not gross misconduct, and remands the damages calculation to the agency for re-evaluation under the correct standard.