Skip to main content

Hafer v. United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board

9th CircuitMay 9, 2008No. No. 06-72817
Defendant WinUnited Airlines
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Leighton, Pregerson, Wardlaw
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Whistleblower

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Administrative Review Board's dismissal of Hafer's AIR 21 whistleblower claim against United Airlines, holding that the claim was properly discharged in United's bankruptcy proceedings and no statutory exception to discharge applied.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Michael Hafer, an employee at United Airlines, filed a whistleblower complaint under the AIR 21 law, which protects airline workers who report safety concerns or other violations. However, United Airlines went through bankruptcy proceedings while Hafer's case was pending. The company argued that Hafer's whistleblower claim should be dismissed because it was part of the debts that were wiped out during bankruptcy. **What the Court Decided** The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Hafer. The court agreed with United Airlines and upheld an earlier decision by the Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board. The judges found that Hafer's whistleblower claim was properly eliminated during United's bankruptcy process, and no special legal exception applied that would have saved his case from being discharged. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling shows that workers' whistleblower claims can potentially be wiped out if their employer goes through bankruptcy. This creates a concerning situation where companies facing financial difficulties might be able to escape responsibility for retaliating against employees who report wrongdoing. Workers should be aware that bankruptcy proceedings can affect their ability to pursue workplace protection claims, even those designed to encourage reporting safety violations.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Seitz
N.D. Cal.Nov 2021
Dismissed
Baum
COLOCTAPPJun 2019

Baum sustained work-related injuries that caused him to be temporarily totally disabled. United Airlines (UAL) paid Baum full pay under its wage continuation plan after he sustained an admitted work-related injury, but UAL also claimed a credit on its final admission of liability (FAL) for the comparable temporary total disability (TTD) benefits it would have otherwise been statutorily required to pay Baum. This credit increased Baum's reported TTD benefits, pushing them over the statutory cap. Baum challenged UAL's right to take the credit. The Division of Workers' Compensation director concluded that benefits paid under the wage compensation plan are not similar to vacation or sick leave. Therefore, their accrual and exercise did not bar UAL from taking the claimed TTD credit. A panel of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) affirmed on review. On appeal, Baum argued that CRS § 8-42-124 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because the plan was approved by the director without the opportunity for injured workers to challenge it in court. UAL's plan was adopted and approved before Baum sustained any injury. Baum could not meet the threshold test of being deprived of a property interest without due process when the plan was approved because he had no such interest when the plan was approved. Baum also argued that this absence of appellate review of wage continuation plans violates separation of powers. The separation of powers doctrine does not guarantee that the judicial branch will be given oversight over every action taken by a governmental entity. In adopting CRS § 8-24-124, the legislature made wage continuation plans subject to the director's, not its own, approval. Further, the judicial branch is not excluded from reviewing these plans through court review of agency actions. The approval of CRS § 8-42-124 did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. Baum next contended that the Panel erroneously affirmed the director's grant of summar

Defendant Win
Jones
7th CircuitJun 2014
Defendant Win
Chille
W.D.N.Y.Sep 2001
Dismissed
National Labor Relations Board v. United Insurance Co. of America
U.S. Supreme CourtMar 1968
Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.