Background
Andrew DesOrmeaux, a pilot employed by Kalitta Air, LLC, requested medical and religious exemptions from the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Kalitta placed DesOrmeaux on unpaid leave and later terminated his employment. DesOrmeaux filed suit alleging violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Michigan state civil rights laws. The district court granted summary judgment to Kalitta, relying on the Sixth Circuit’s prior decision in Odell v. Kalitta Air, LLC, which held that similar claims were preempted by the Railway Labor Act.
The court’s reasoning
The Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the district court correctly applied the Railway Labor Act preemption doctrine. The court explained that preemption applies only when a claim is inextricably intertwined with a collective bargaining agreement, meaning the agreement must conclusively resolve the dispute. The court found that DesOrmeaux’s requested accommodation differed materially from the accommodation sought in Odell. DesOrmeaux sought recognition of his immunity to fly to any destination, whereas the plaintiffs in Odell sought schedule modifications. Because there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether DesOrmeaux’s accommodation required interpreting the collective bargaining agreement, summary judgment was improper for the failure to accommodate and state law claims. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of retaliation claims because DesOrmeaux failed to preserve those arguments in the district court.
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.
DesOrmeaux v. Kalitta Air, LLC, No. 25-1772, slip op. at 14 (6th Cir. July 6, 2026)
What it means going forward
Employers facing similar vaccine mandate disputes must demonstrate that a specific plaintiff’s accommodation request is inextricably intertwined with the collective bargaining agreement rather than relying solely on prior precedent. Plaintiffs must raise all arguments regarding protected activity and causation at the district court level to preserve them for appeal.