A U.S. District Court in California this month awarded $78 million to a class of about 1,800 flight attendants who alleged violation of state and city labor and wage laws while they worked for Virgin America. Alaska, which acquired Virgin in December 2016, plans to appeal the ruling.
Alaska Airlines has been ordered to pay $78 million in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of approximately 1,800 flight attendants who worked for Virgin America and sued that airline before it was acquired by Alaska in Dec. 2016.
The lawsuit alleges that Virgin violated multiple California and City of San Francisco labor and wage laws. A federal judge in California entered final judgment this month, Alaska disclosed Friday in its year-end filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Alaska said Friday it plans to appeal the ruling, challenging the application of local labor laws in the airline industry, where labor relations are typically governed by the federal Railway Labor Act.
The suit was filed in 2015 by three flight attendants, and was certified as a class action just a month before Alaska completed its acquisition.
Most Read Business Stories
- Amazon and CEO Jeff Bezos challenged on climate change. Here’s how shareholders voted on it and other issues.
- ‘We had executional misses’ — Nordstrom reports decline in profits and sales
- FAA head says Boeing 737 MAX will return to flight, but timetable is uncertain
- Top executive at Boeing’s troubled South Carolina plant is out
- Tesla reduces prices on Models S and X amid stock slump
It alleges that Virgin failed to pay its flight attendants overtime and minimum wages, and did not pay them for hours worked before, after, and between flights, and for time spent in training, on reserve, completing reports or taking mandatory drug tests. In addition, it alleges that Virgin did not allow flight attendants to take meal or rest breaks.
Alaska issued a statement Friday saying that as an air carrier it is bound by federal aviation regulations.
“These rules are prescribed by the FAA and supersede/preempt state law,” the statement said. “We are disappointed in the judgment in this case and plan to appeal the rulings.”