O'Hailpin v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
RIKI O’HAILPIN; NINA ARIZUMI;
ROBERT ESPINOSA; ERWIN YOUNG;
PUANANI BADIANG; SABRINA
FRANKS; RONALD LUM; DAN SAIKI;
BRANDEE AUKAI,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV. NO. 22-00532 HG-WRP
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN
HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION AGAINST PLAINTIFFS SAIKI AND ESPINOSA (ECF No. 378)
Plaintiffs Robert Espinosa and Dan Saiki were employed as
pilots by the Hawaiian Defendants when in 2020 the world was
impacted by the COVID-19 global pandemic.
In August 2021, Defendants Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and
Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. (“Hawaiian Defendants”) implemented a
mandatory vaccination policy for COVID-19.
Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki requested to be exempt from
the Hawaiian Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccination policy based on
their religious beliefs. The Hawaiian Defendants denied
Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki’s requests for exemption from their
vaccination policy.
1
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki, along with seven other
individuals, have filed suit against the Hawaiian Defendants.
Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki claim the Hawaiian Defendants
failed to reasonably accommodate their religious beliefs in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The
Hawaiian Defendants assert that it would have caused undue
hardship to accommodate the pilots’ requests for exemption.
The Hawaiian Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs Espinosa and
Saiki’s religious accommodation claims. The Hawaiian Defendants
assert that Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki’s Title VII failure-to-
accommodate claims require interpretation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement that applied to the two Plaintiffs as pilots
at the time they sought exemption from the vaccination policy.
The Hawaiian Defendants argue that the Court may not review
Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki’s claims due to the jurisdictional
limitations set forth in the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 181-
188 (“RLA”). The RLA requires claims that involve interpretation
of collective bargaining agreements for transportation workers to
be resolved only through the RLA’s internal dispute-resolution
processes. See 45 U.S.C. § 184.
Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs Saiki and Espinosa (ECF No. 378) is
GRANTED.
2
---
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki and
seven other individual Plaintiffs filed the Complaint. (ECF No.
1).
On August 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify
Classes and Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 50).
On December 12, 2023, District Judge Otake issued an ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASSES AND APPOINT
COUNSEL. (ECF No. 101).
On January 18, 2024, the case was reassigned from Judge
Otake to Judge Gillmor. (ECF No. 103).
On February 19, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to
Bifurcate. (ECF No. 176).
On February 20, 2025, the Court held a Status Conference.
(ECF No. 178).
On March 5, 2025, the Court held another Status Conference
and a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate. (ECF No. 190).
On March 19, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial
Dismissal as to Plaintiff Nina Arizumi. (ECF No. 197).
On April 7, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Parties’
Joint Statement Regarding Severing Trials. (ECF No. 210). The
Parties agreed that Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki would be tried
together as the first set of Plaintiffs. (Id.)
On May 6, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why
3
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Count II For Disparate Impact Should Not Be Dismissed. (ECF No.
253).
Also on May 6, 2025, the Court issued an ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.’S
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION AS
TO COUNTS I AND IV FOR PLAINTIFF NINA ARIZUMI. (ECF No. 254).
On May 7, 2025, the Court issued an ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE. (ECF No. 257).
On May 9, 2025, the Court held a Status Conference. (ECF
No. 276).
On May 29, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Parties’
Motions in Limine. (ECF No. 318). At the hearing, the Court
dismissed Count II for Disparate Impact and Count III for
Retaliation with prejudice. (Id.)
On May 30, 2025, the Court issued an ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE. (ECF No. 316).
Also on May 30, 2025, the Court issued an ORDER ON
PLAINTIFFS ROBERT ESPINOSA AND DAN SAIKI’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS.
2-6. (ECF No. 317).
On June 2, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Sever. (ECF
No. 320).
On June 9, 2025, the Court held a hearing and denied
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Sever. (ECF No. 325). The Court explained
4
---
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

that there were various outstanding issues to be addressed prior
to trial including the Parties’ repeated requests for
continuances, the issue of late-disclosed exhibits, the Parties’
expert reports, deposition excerpts, and the Parties’ exhibits
and their lack of conformity to the Court’s rulings regarding the
Motions in Limine. (Id.) Trial was continued to November 18,
2025. (Id.)
On July 31, 2025, the Court issued an ORDER GRANTING, IN
PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO
EXCLUDE EXHIBITS NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY. (ECF No. 348).
On September 4, 2025, the Court issued a Minute Order
regarding newly issued published decisions from the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals and set a status conference for September 25,
2025. (ECF No. 373).
On September 16, 2025, Defendants submitted a letter to the
Court stating that they intended to file a Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs Espinosa and
Saiki. (ECF No. 375).
On September 22, 2025, Defendants filed DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN
AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AGAINST PLAINTIFFS SAIKI
AND ESPINOSA. (ECF No. 378).
On September 25, 2025, the Court held a Status Conference.
(ECF No. 380).
5
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 5 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

On October 6, 2025, Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki filed an
Opposition to the Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction. (ECF No. 384).
On October 20, 2025, Defendants filed their Reply. (ECF No.
387).
On October 28, 2025, the Court received a letter from
Plaintiffs’ counsel requesting leave to file a Supplemental
Brief. (ECF No. 388).
The Court allowed Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Leave to
File a Supplemental Brief and allowed Defendants to file a
Response to the Motion. (ECF No. 389).
On November 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave
to file a Supplemental Briefing. (ECF No. 390).
On November 12, 2025, Defendants filed their Response to the
Motion to for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief. (ECF No. 392).
Without leave of Court, on November 20, 2025, Plaintiffs
filed a Reply to their Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental
Brief. (ECF No. 394).
Following Plaintiffs’ filing on November 20, 2025,
Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Reply Seeking to
File a Supplemental Brief. (ECF No. 395).
On November 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike their Reply Seeking to File a
Supplemental Brief. (ECF No. 398).
6
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 6 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

On December 5, 2025, the Court issued an Order Denying
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief and
Denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike. (ECF No. 401).
The Court elects to decide the Motion without a hearing
pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.1(c).
BACKGROUND
Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.’s Operation
At the time of the announcement of the vaccination policy in
August 2021, Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. operated all of
its passenger flights to and from the Hawaiian Islands. There
were three different types of scheduled passenger service:
(1) Domestic flights to and from the Hawaiian Islands
to the United States Mainland;
(2) International flights to and from the Hawaiian
Islands to numerous foreign locations including
Japan, Australia, South Korea, French Polynesia,
along with to and from the overseas U.S. territory
of American Samoa; and
(3) Inter-island flights within the Hawaiian Islands.
(Declaration of Justin Doane, Vice President of Labor Relations
for Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., at ¶ 19, (“Doane Decl.”), ECF No.
378-2; Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) at e.g., §1-23 ¶¶
7-8, 10; at §2-7 ¶¶ FF, GG, HH, II, JJ, KK, CCC; §4-2C.1-3,
attached as Ex. 1 to Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-10; Declaration
of Kathleen Mainerd, Senior Manager, Defendants’ South Pacific
7
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 7 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Airport Operations (“Mainerd Decl.”) at ¶ 3, attached to Pl.’s
Motion, ECF No. 378-4; Declaration of Ryan D. Thomas, Senior
Manager, Defendants’ Labor Initiatives for Airport Operations
(“Thomas Decl.”) at ¶¶ 3, 5, 7, attached to Pl.’s Motion, ECF No.
378-5; Declaration of Jon Snook, Chief Operations Officer for
Def. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (“Snook Decl.”), at ¶¶ 6-7, attached
to Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-7; Declaration of Plaintiff Robert
Espinosa at ¶¶ 6-10, 15, (“Espinosa Decl.”) attached as Ex. 4 to
Pl.’s Opp., ECF No. 384-5).
The airline also operated cargo flights as a Federal
Contractor for the United States government. (Deposition of Dan
Saiki at pp. 40-42 (“Saiki Depo.”), attached as Ex. 8 to Def.’s
Motion, ECF No. 378-17; Declaration of Justin Doane attached to
Def.’s Reply at ¶ 6, ECF No. 385-1).
The airline operated various aircraft including the Airbus
330, the Boeing 767, the Airbus 321, and the Boeing 717. (CBA at
Section 20 § 20-1, ¶ 3, ECF No. 378-10).
Plaintiffs’ Collective Bargaining Agreement
Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki, as pilots for Defendant
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., were subject to a Collective Bargaining
Agreement entitled:
“Agreement Between Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and the Airline
Pilots in the Service of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. as
Represented by the Airline Pilots Association, International
2017 Pilots Agreement.”
8
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 8 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

(Doane Decl. at ¶ 5, ECF No. 378-2; CBA attached as Ex. 1 to
Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-10).
The Collective Bargaining Agreement is commonly referred to
as the “CBA.” It was in effect from April 1, 2017 through July
1, 2022. (Id.)
The Collective Bargaining Agreement or CBA governed the
working relationship between pilots, including Plaintiffs
Espinosa and Saiki, and the Hawaiian Defendants. (Doane Decl. at
¶ 5, ECF No. 378-2). The CBA sets forth the terms and conditions
of the pilots’ employment, including seniority and scheduling.
(Id. at ¶¶ 8-11).
According to Defendants’ Vice President for Labor Relations,
Justin Doane, seniority is a key factor in the airline industry
and the Pilots’ flight schedules were determined through a
seniority-based bidding system created by the CBA. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-
11).
Under the CBA, pilots are classified as “bid” or “reserve”
pilots. (Id. at ¶ 12). Each month, “bid pilots” request a set
schedule for the month, with specific routes, destinations, and
days off by indicating their preferences. (Id. at ¶ 13). The
most senior pilot is awarded his first choice and the next most
senior will receive his request based on what is remaining and so
on. (Id.)
In contrast to a “bid pilot,” a “reserve pilot” does not
9
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 9 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

request a set schedule each month but instead is required to
maintain a means of contact with crew scheduling and is on-call
for flight assignments. (Id. at ¶ 15).
In addition, there is an Open Trip Scheduling List where
both bid pilots and reserve pilots are scheduled to work flights
in various groupings. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-17; CBA at Section 22 at §
22-8 on “Scheduling Policy,” ECF No. 378-10). The scheduling and
assignment process is complex. For example, pilots on the Open
Trip Scheduling List are assigned flights in order of nine
separate priorities that involve various factors including
seniority. (Id.)
The seniority and bidding provisions of the CBA cover the
Hawaiian pilots’ work assignments and awarding of bid routes,
scheduling of pilots on “runs” (including locations, dates,
duration, and layovers), and aircraft types. (Doane Decl at ¶
11, ECF No. 378-2; CBA at Section 18 on “Seniority,” Section 20
on “Filling Of Vacancies,” Section 21 on “Preparation, Bidding, &
Awarding Of Runs,” Section 22 on “Scheduling Policy, attached as
Ex. 1 to Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-10).
Seniority and bidding procedures also affect work
conditions, tasks, pay rates, and compensation. (CBA at Section
3 on “Compensation,” and Section 10 on “Hours of Service,”
attached as Ex. 1 to Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-10).
The Collective Bargaining Agreement contains a provision
10
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 10 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

mandating that any disputes concerning interpretation or
application of any of the terms of the CBA be resolved through
arbitration by the System Board of Adjustment whose decision is
final and binding on the parties as provided by the Railway Labor
Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (Doane Decl. at ¶ 7, ECF No. 378-2;
CBA at Section 17, attached as Ex. 1 to Def.’s Motion, ECF No.
378-10).
The Hawaiian Defendants’ Vaccination Policy
According to the Complaint, on August 9, 2021, in the midst
of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, the Hawaiian Defendants
announced a vaccination policy. (Complaint at ¶ 43, ECF No. 1).
Plaintiffs allege that the Hawaiian Defendants required all of
their U.S.-based employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine or
receive approval for exemptions based on religious or medical
reasons. (Id. at ¶¶ 43, 54).
The Complaint asserts that on September 17, 2021, the
Hawaiian Defendants published the vaccination policy and required
proof of vaccination by January 30, 2022. (Id. at ¶ 45).
The Hawaiian Defendants’ employees were permitted to submit
requests for accommodation to the vaccination policy based on
their religious beliefs or disabilities. (Declaration of Robin
Kobayashi, Senior Vice President of Human Resources at Defendant
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., (“Kobayashi Decl.”) at ¶ 4, attached to
11
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 11 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-6).
A total of 71 unvaccinated pilots submitted accommodation
requests to Defendants’ vaccination policy. (Declaration of
Willard Jackson, Senior Director of Leave Management for
Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (“Jackson Decl.”) at ¶ 4,
attached to Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-3).
Plaintiff Espinosa
At the time of the Defendants’ vaccination policy in 2021,
Plaintiff Robert Espinosa was a First Officer pilot employed by
Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (Declaration of Robert
Espinosa (“Espinosa Decl.”) at ¶ 2, attached as Ex. 4 to Pl.’s
Opp., ECF No. 384-5).
Plaintiff Espinosa states that throughout 2020 and 2021 he
bid for and received trips as a First Officer piloting the Airbus
330. (Id. at ¶ 6). Plaintiff Espinosa states that the only
aircraft he has flown for the Hawaiian Defendants is an Airbus
330. (Id. at ¶ 5). Plaintiff asserts that in 2020 he flew both
international and domestic routes for Defendants and that in 2021
he only flew domestic routes. (Id. at ¶ 7).
Plaintiff Espinosa requested to be exempt from the
vaccination policy based on his religious belief but his request
was denied. (Espinosa Decl. at ¶ 4, ECF No. 384-5). Plaintiff
was placed on leave without pay status between February and
12
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 12 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

November 2022. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 12).
Plaintiff returned to work for the Hawaiian Defendants when
the vaccination policy was rescinded. (Id. at ¶ 2, 3).
Plaintiff remains employed as a First Officer for Defendant
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (Id.)
Plaintiff Saiki
Plaintiff Dan Saiki was a Captain for Defendant Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc. when the vaccination policy was announced in
August 2021. (Declaration of Dan Saiki at ¶ 2, attached as Ex. 7
to Pl.’s Opp., ECF No. 384-8).
Plaintiff Saiki states in his Declaration that he piloted
multiple types of aircraft for the Hawaiian Defendants prior to
the COVID-19 pandemic, but throughout 2020 and 2021 he bid for
and received trips only on the Airbus 330 aircraft. (Id. at ¶ 4-
5). Plaintiff Saiki asserts that in 2020 and 2021 he flew both
international and domestic routes piloting the Airbus 330. (Id.
at ¶ 5).
Plaintiff Saiki’s request for exemption from the Defendants’
vaccination policy based on his religious beliefs was denied.
(Id. at ¶¶ 3, 9). Plaintiff Saiki alleges that he was forced to
take an early retirement in December 2021 because he refused to
comply with the Defendants’ vaccination policy. (Id.)
13
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 13 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki’s Cause of Action
On December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki filed a
Complaint, along with seven other Plaintiffs, against the
Hawaiian Defendants. (Complaint, ECF No. 1).
Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki’s only remaining cause of
action is Count I, as follows:
COUNT I: Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., for Religious
Discrimination Based On Failure-To-Accommodate
The Hawaiian Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant To the
Railway Labor Act
The Hawaiian Defendants have filed a Motion for Dismissal as
to Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
The Hawaiian Defendants’ Motion argues that the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs Espinosa and
Saiki’s failure-to-accommodate causes of action because such
claims are precluded from court jurisdiction pursuant to the
Railroad Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A plaintiff has the burden of proving that subject-matter
jurisdiction exists. Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. &
Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). The Court must
14
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 14 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

dismiss any claims for which it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); Leeson v.
Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir.
2012).
A challenge to the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction may
be “facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d
1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a facial attack, the party
challenging jurisdiction argues that the allegations contained in
a complaint are insufficient “on their face” to invoke federal
jurisdiction. Id. A facial challenge therefore mirrors a
traditional motion to dismiss analysis. The Court must take all
allegations contained in the pleading “to be true and draw all
reasonable inferences in [its] favor.” Wolfe v. Strankman, 392
F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004).
In a factual attack, the party challenging jurisdiction
argues that the facts in the case, notwithstanding the
allegations in the Complaint, divest the Court of subject-matter
jurisdiction. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.
2000). No presumptive truthfulness attaches to the Complaint’s
allegations. Id. The party challenging jurisdiction presents
“affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the court”
indicating that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. Savage
v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir.
2003). The burden then shifts to “the party opposing the motion
15
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 15 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

[to] furnish affidavits or other evidence to satisfy its burden
of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. Failure to
present suitable evidence establishing subject-matter
jurisdiction necessitates dismissal. Moore v. Maricopa Cnty.
Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2011).
A motion challenging the district court’s jurisdiction
pursuant to the Railway Labor Act is properly considered as a
motion bringing a factual attack on subject-matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Soper v. United Airlines,
Inc., 2024 WL 4800082, *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2024).
The Court may review the Collective Bargaining Agreement and
other relevant evidence to determine whether it has subject-
matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. Hinant v.
American Airlines, Inc., 2024 WL 4988391, *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 5,
2024).
ANALYSIS
I. The Railway Labor Act
The Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., was
enacted to provide a comprehensive framework for resolving labor
disputes involving transportation carriers.
In 1936, the Railway Labor Act was extended to cover the
airline industry. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S.
246, 248 (1994); see 45 U.S.C. § 181.
16
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 16 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

The RLA addresses three kinds of labor disputes:
(1) major disputes;
(2) minor disputes; and
(3) representation disputes.
Haralson v. United Airlines, Inc., 224 F.Supp.3d 928, 934 (N.D.
Cal. 2016).
First, “major disputes” relate to the formation of
collective bargaining agreements or the efforts of the parties to
secure rights under the collective bargaining process. Consol.
Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 302
(1989). Major disputes look to the acquisition of rights for the
future, and they do not involve disputes about rights that were
already secured in existing contracts. Id. Major disputes
require the parties to undergo lengthy bargaining, mediation, and
arbitration processes. Id.
Second, “minor disputes” seek to enforce existing
contractual rights as embodied in an existing collective
bargaining agreement. Aircraft Serv. Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd.
of Teamsters, 779 F.3d 1069, 1081 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).
Minor disputes require the existence of a collective bargaining
agreement already in effect and involve “controversies over the
meaning of an existing collective bargaining agreement in a
particular fact situation.” Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. Burley,
325 U.S. 711, 723 (1945).
17
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 17 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

The RLA mandates that minor disputes are subject to an
exclusive dispute resolution mechanism for the prompt and orderly
settlement of such claims. Norris, 512 U.S. at 252.
A distinguishing feature of a minor dispute from a major
dispute is that a minor dispute requires interpretation of an
existing collective bargaining agreement whereas a major dispute
challenges an attempt to form or secure collective bargaining
rights. Id. at 265. Courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to
adjudicate minor disputes concerning an existing collective
bargaining agreement. Id.
Third, the RLA also covers “representation disputes” which
concern the definition of a particular bargaining unit and
selection of the employee representative for collective
bargaining. Herrera v. Command Sec. Corp., 837 F.3d 979, 989
(9th Cir. 2016). Representation disputes are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board and courts
also lack jurisdiction over such claims. Id.
II. Courts Lack Subject-Matter Jurisdiction To Review Minor
Disputes Pursuant To The Railway Labor Act
Minor disputes about the contractual rights set forth in an
existing collective bargaining agreement between an employee and
a transportation carrier must be resolved through the RLA’s non-
judicial, procedural mechanisms rather than through a lawsuit.
See 45 U.S.C. § 184. Courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction
18
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 18 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

over minor disputes within the meaning of the RLA. Norris, 512
U.S. at 253.
A. There Is A Two-Step Test To Discern If A Dispute Over A
Collective Bargaining Agreement Is Precluded From Court
Jurisdiction
Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a two-step test to
evaluate if a plaintiff’s claim is preempted or precluded from
court review by the RLA. Columbia Exp. Terminal, LLC v. Int’l
Longshore & Warehouse Union, 23 F.4th 836, 841-42 (9th Cir.
2022).
First, the court examines if the plaintiff’s claim seeks
purely to vindicate a right or duty created by the collective
bargaining agreement itself. Id. at 843. If so, the claim is
preempted or precluded from review. If not, the court proceeds
to the second step.
Second, even if the claim does not seek to vindicate a right
created by the CBA, the court evaluates if the plaintiff’s claim
is substantially dependant on analysis and interpretation of the
CBA. Id. If the claim does require analysis and interpretation
of the CBA, the claim is preempted or precluded from review.
B. Claims That Require Interpretation Of An Existing
Collective Bargaining Agreement Are Precluded From
Court Review Under The RLA
Under step two, a court is without subject-matter
19
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 19 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

jurisdiction to review a plaintiff’s claim that concerns
interpretation of the “duties and rights created or defined by
the collective bargaining agreement.” Alaska Airlines, Inc. v.
Schurke, 898 F.3d 904, 919 (9th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (quoting
Norris, 512 U.S. at 258). Such disputes must be resolved only
through the RLA mechanisms, and not by a court. Id.
The RLA exclusivity provision was enacted to ensure that
disputes regarding existing collective bargaining agreements are
governed by a uniform set of principles rather than conflicting
substantive interpretations under competing legal systems in the
federal and state courts. Schurke, 898 F.3d at 919.
C. Disputes That Do Not Require Interpretation Of the
Existing Collective Bargaining Agreement Are Not
Preempted Or Precluded From Court Review
Consultation of the collective bargaining agreement alone is
insufficient to trigger application of the RLA. Livadas v.
Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 124 (1994). In order to qualify as a
minor dispute pursuant to the RLA, the dispute must require
interpretation of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
Norris, 512 U.S. at 265.
The court is not divested of jurisdiction pursuant to the
RLA if there is no disagreement as to the meaning of all of the
terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Schurke, 898 F.3d
at 927. “Reliance on and reference to CBA-established or CBA-
20
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 20 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

defined terms of employment do not make for a CBA dispute if
there is no disagreement about the meaning or application of any
relevant CBA-covered terms of employment.” Id.
For example, a claim for damages dependent on a CBA’s
undisputed wage provisions are not preempted by the RLA because
the claim is not dependent on interpretation of a CBA term.
Livadas, 512 U.S. at 125.
III. Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki’s Failure-To-Accommodate
Claims Require Interpretation Of The Existing Collective
Bargaining Agreement
The Hawaiian Defendants assert that Plaintiffs Espinosa and
Saiki’s failure-to-accommodate claims pursuant to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act are precluded from review because they
involve a “minor dispute” about the terms of the existing
collective bargaining agreement.
The Hawaiian Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims
regarding the availability of accommodations from their vaccine
policy and whether the airline faced undue hardship require
interpretation of various provisions of the existing CBA.
A. Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki’s Requests For Exemption
From Vaccination Require Interpretation Of The
Seniority, Bidding, Training, And Vacancy Provisions Of
The Collective Bargaining Agreement
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Trans World
21
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 21 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 67 (1977), that it was
an undue hardship to force an employer to violate an existing
collective bargaining agreement in order to provide an employee
with his requested accommodation. See Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S.
447, 470 (2023) (clarifying that undue hardship requires more
than de minimis cost).
The undue hardship analysis must take into account all
relevant factors, including the particular accommodations at
issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size,
and operating cost of an employer. Groff, 600 U.S. at 471.
There is undue hardship on an employer “where a variance from a
bona fide seniority system is necessary in order to accommodate
an employee’s religious practices when doing so would deny
another employee his or her job or shift preference guaranteed by
that system.” 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(e)(2).
In the context of vaccine mandates during the COVID-19
pandemic, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in
Petersen v. Snohomish Reg’l Fire & Rescue, 150 F.4th 1211, 1220
(9th Cir. 2025), that it is appropriate to examine: (1) health
and safety costs, (2) operational burdens, and (3) financial
burdens on the employer. The undue hardship analysis
specifically requires consideration of potential operational
disruption caused by accommodations to large numbers of employees
seeking accommodations at the same time. Id.
22
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 22 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

1. Interpretation Of Various CBA Terms Is Required To
Evaluate Plaintiffs’ Claims
Operational burdens are central to the undue hardship
defense raised by the Hawaiian Defendants. The Hawaiian
Defendants argue that accommodating all 71 of the pilots that
requested exemption from vaccination would have substantially
disrupted not only their business operations but would have
violated numerous terms of the existing CBA, including its
seniority provisions, process bidding for routes, and scheduling
of pilots. See Hardison, 432 U.S. at 79; 29 C.F.R. §
1605.2(e)(2).
In 2020 and 2021, Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki were pilots
who flew exclusively on the Defendants’ Airbus 330 aircraft.
(Espinosa Decl. at ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 384-5; Saiki Decl. at ¶ 5, ECF
No. 384-8). Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki had specifically bid
for their routes flown on the Airbus 330 aircraft. (Id.)
Piloting an Airbus 330 aircraft provided for the highest
hourly rate of pay pursuant to the terms of the CBA. (See CBA
Section 3, Compensation, at §3-4, ECF No. 378-10). Piloting an
Airbus 330 aircraft also determined the routes flown and other
terms of employment because not all aircraft were flown on all
routes. (CBA Section 2, Definitions at § 2FF-II, Section 20,
Filling of Vacancies at §20-1A, ECF No. 378-10; Snook Decl. at ¶
4, ECF No. 378-7). The types of routes flown also dictated other
23
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 23 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

employment terms. For example, expenses were paid at a higher
rate for “International Flying” rather than “Interisland Flying.”
(See CBA Section 5, Expenses at §5-1, ECF No. 378-10). Piloting
an Airbus 300 aircraft also provided priority for filling of
vacancies pursuant to the CBA. (See CBA Section 20, Vacancies at
§20-1, ¶A.3, ECF No. 378-10).
The questions raised by Plaintiffs’ failure-to-accommodate
claims require interpretation of the CBA terms because the
Parties dispute what accommodations were available to Plaintiffs
Espinosa and Saiki based on their interpretations of several
terms in the CBA.
The Hawaiian Defendants assert that deciding what
accommodations “could be feasible would necessarily entail
interpreting...seniority, filling of vacancies, bidding, and
awarding of runs provisions of the CBA.” (Doane Decl. at ¶ 22,
attached to Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-2; see CBA Section 2,
Definitions; Section 3, Compensation; Section 18, Seniority;
Section 20, Filling of Vacancies; Section 21, Preparation,
Bidding & Awarding of Runs; Section 22, Scheduling Policy,
attached as Ex. 1 to Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-10).
The Hawaiian Defendants argue that complications in
assignments arose on numerous international routes from Honolulu
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants assert that they were
aware that the governments of Australia, American Samoa, French
24
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 24 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Polynesia, and Japan implemented certain restrictions for
unvaccinated travelers in their jurisdictions. (See Public
Health (COVID-19 Air Transportation Quarantine) Order (No 4)
2021, issued by the New South Wales Government, attached as Ex. 2
Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-11; Hawaiian Airlines Alert 20-12 re:
American Samoa, dated September 10, 2021, attached as Ex. 4 to
Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-13; Hawaiian Airlines Alert 20-11 re:
French Polynesia, dated August 2, 2021, attached as Ex. 5 to
Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-14; Health Alert - U.S. Embassy Tokyo
by U.S. Mission Japan, dated September 29, 2021, attached as Ex.
6 to Def.’s Motion, ECF No. 378-15).
The Hawaiian Defendants assert that the actual and potential
foreign restrictions created a complicated, shifting legal
landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic and that they faced
unpredictable operational concerns when scheduling pilots. (COO
of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. Snook Decl. at ¶¶ 5-8, ECF No. 378-7;
see Doane Decl. at ¶¶ 19-24, ECF No. 378-2; see also Mainerd
Decl. at ¶ 3, ECF No. 378-4; Thomas Decl. at ¶¶ 3, 5, 7, ECF No.
378-5).
Justin Doane, Defendants’ Vice President of Labor Relations,
points to numerous provisions of the CBA requiring interpretation
in order to evaluate the availability of certain accommodations
and the potential undue hardship to the Hawaiian Defendants
during the pandemic, specifically:
25
--- ----
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 25 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

CBA Provision Topic: CBA Provision Number and Text
Seniority 18.A Seniority as a Pilot shall be
based upon the length of service as a
Pilot with the Company.... Seniority
shall govern all pilots in case
of...their selection of vacancies and
runs, and all other rights, privileges
and opportunities accorded to pilots
under this Agreement.
Filling of Vacancies 20.A.3 All vacancies shall ... be
filled by status, equipment and
domicile in accordance with this
Section and Section 18 (Seniority)
Preparation, Bidding &
Awarding of Runs
21.C.1 Each pilot shall, in seniority,
be awarded his or her preferences for
the month.
Open Trip Scheduling
List (OTSL)
22.G.3 Pilots on the OTSL are assigned
or awarded a flight grouping(s) as
follows ... h. ... to recalled bid line
pilots (“junior [m]anning”) in reverse
order of seniority who are legal to
accept the award but must be removed
from a flight grouping(s) or reserve
day to ensure all contractual and FAR
legality (200% pay per Paragraph H of
this Section and Section 4.N)
(Doane Decl. at ¶ 11, ECF No. 378-2).
The Hawaiian Defendants assert that:
determining whether adjusting pilot schedules to
accommodate unvaccinated pilots by not scheduling them
for international flights to locations with
restrictions on unvaccinated pilots would require an
interpretation of the CBA to determine whether the CBA
grants seniority rights to pilots with regard to
specific destinations and whether, and to what extent,
more senior pilots’ bidding preferences would be
impacted by accommodating unvaccinated pilots to not
fly to those international locations during the
pandemic.
(Id. at ¶ 23).
26
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 26 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Plaintiffs disagree with the Hawaiian Defendants’
interpretation of the CBA. Plaintiffs rely on their own
interpretation of the terms of the CBA to argue that granting
their accommodation requests and their schedule preferences would
not have violated the CBA terms.
2. The Parties’ Disputes About The Interpretation Of
Numerous CBA Terms Preclude Jurisdiction
The questions regarding the availability of reasonable
accommodations and undue hardship pursuant to the terms of the
CBA are the exact types of disputes that the Court lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction to review.
In evaluating preclusion pursuant to the RLA, the analysis
is whether a provision of the CBA could “arguably” dispose of a
claim or defense. Schurke, 898 F.3d at 924. The analysis is not
whether the terms of the CBA would actually permit the
accommodation or would actually cause undue hardship. Instead,
the analysis hinges on whether the trier of fact would arguably
need to resolve disagreements about the terms of the CBA to
evaluate Plaintiffs’ failure-to-accommodate claims and the
Defendants’ undue hardship defense. Id.
Here, there are numerous disputes about the CBA’s terms, the
interplay within the various Sections of the CBA, and the meaning
and applicability of various provisions.
Plaintiffs claim that they could have adjusted their own
27
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 27 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

schedules without implicating or altering any of their own CBA
rights. Plaintiffs, however, ignore that large numbers of
unvaccinated pilots and other flight crew had submitted
accommodation requests, which is a necessary factor in conducting
the undue hardship analysis pursuant to Petersen v. Snohomish
Reg’l Fire & Rescue, 150 F.4th 1211, 1220 (9th Cir. 2025).
Plaintiffs also ignore the various local, state, federal,
and international laws that were at play (and were consistently
evolving) during the pandemic, including the Federal Contractor
Mandate, local and international travel restrictions, and
quarantine requirements. The Hawaiian Defendants were required
to consider the potential operational disruption that may have
been caused given the various laws, regulations, and protocols at
play with the large numbers of accommodations requests.
The Hawaiian Defendants argue that accommodating the 71
unvaccinated pilots’ requests to be exempt from their vaccination
policy, including Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki, would have
displaced the bids of other Hawaiian pilots and impinged on their
seniority rights in violation of the terms of the CBA.
The Plaintiffs disagree. The Plaintiffs argue that under
their interpretation of the CBA, the Hawaiian Defendants have the
authority to ignore the seniority provisions and order specific
pilots to bid for certain flights.
Disagreements about the interpretation, scope, or
28
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 28 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

applicability of specific terms of an existing CBA are the exact
types of disputes that are subject to preclusion pursuant to the
RLA. Hinant, 2024 WL 4988391, at *3 (citing Int’l Ass’n of Sheet
Metal Air, Rail, & Transp. Workers v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2019
WL 6499212 *10 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2019); Pritchard v. American
Airlines, Inc., 708 F.Supp.3d 861, 867 (N.D. Tex. 2023)).
The Parties also dispute whether the CBA terms would have
permitted the Hawaiian Defendants to have unilaterally forced
Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki to fly on aircraft other than the
Airbus 330 which may have resulted in different routes, lesser
pay, and additionally disrupted the seniority and bidding
provisions. Various terms of the CBA would certainly be
implicated in such a “self-help” accommodation scheme of
potentially bidding around certain foreign destination for an
indefinite period of time.
The Hawaiian Defendants argue that allowing unvaccinated
pilots to voluntarily opt out of Airbus 330 flights entirely and
switch to other aircraft that flew only domestic routes or inter-
island flights would have required interpretation of the CBA due
to the seniority implications of such changes and the ripple
effects that they would have created across all of Defendants’
training resources. (Doane Decl. at ¶¶ 8-10, ECF No. 378-2).
Defendants assert that changing to a new aircraft requires
training for the pilot and such accommodations implicate the
29
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 29 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

terms of the CBA regarding training, vacancies, and bidding. The
Hawaiian Defendants assert that their “ability to award and train
the unvaccinated pilots on the Boeing 717 fleet so that they
could keep flying after January 4, 2022, would have required
Hawaiian to create additional B-717 vacancies in light of the
total number of unvaccinated pilots who requested
accommodations.” (Def.’s Motion at p. 12, ECF No. 385; see Doane
Decl. at ¶¶ 20-24, ECF No. 378-2).
The Court agrees with the Hawaiian Defendants that the
questions raised by Plaintiffs’ accommodation claims require
interpretation of the CBA terms. Interpretation of the CBA is
required to determine if Defendants could have prioritized
unvaccinated pilots’ bidding and training requests over the
bidding and training of vaccinated pilots, and whether the CBA’s
terms concerning seniority rights, route assignments, and job
duties and titles would allow for such accommodations. The
Parties’ disputes must be resolved by the Systems Board of
Adjustment Arbitrator as provided in Section 1, Paragraph H in
the CBA. (CBA at §1-H, Expedited Arbitration, ECF No. 378-10).
Interpretation of the CBA is also required with respect to
the question regarding whether the Hawaiian Defendants could have
granted an accommodation to Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki alone
or whether the Defendants would have been required to provide the
same accommodation to the other 69 unvaccinated pilots who also
30
---
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 30 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

requested exemption from the vaccine policy. (Jackson Decl. at ¶
4, ECF No. 378-3).
These disputes about the CBA require interpretation of
numerous provisions of the CBA and are necessary to resolve
Plaintiffs’ failure-to-accommodate claims. The disputes
regarding the terms of the CBA directly impact the evaluation of
the reasonable accommodations available and the undue hardship
defense. Hardison, 432 U.S. at 79; 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(e)(2).
B. Plaintiffs’ Failure-To-Accommodate Claims Require More
Than Mere Reference To The Terms Of The Collective
Bargaining Agreement
Courts have ruled that a plaintiff’s claim is not precluded
by the RLA when the court need simply review a term in a CBA or
read the provisions of a CBA to determine its basic provisions.
Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir.
2007); Angeles v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 2013 WL 622032, *6 (N.D.
Cal. Feb. 19, 2013); but see McKinley v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
680 Fed. Appx. 522, 524-25 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding rate of
overtime pay required interpretation of the CBA because plaintiff
disputed the amount due under the terms of the CBA).
Here, Plaintiffs’ failure-to-accommodate claims do not
merely require the Court to look to the CBA or reference its
terms. Instead, Plaintiffs’ failure-to-accommodate claims
require interpretation of the complex Collective Bargaining
31
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 31 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Agreement and various provisions governing scheduling, bidding,
training, and seniority for pilots. Plaintiffs’ failure-to-
accommodate claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the CBA’s
terms. Edelman v. W. Airlines, Inc., 892 F.2d 839, 845 (9th Cir.
1989).
Interpretation of the CBA is also required to determine the
effect that past practice, usage, and custom have on the terms in
the CBA.
In Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Lab. Executives’ Ass’n, 491
U.S. 299, 311 (1989), the United States Supreme Court ruled that
interpretation of collective bargaining agreements often depends
on practice, usage, and custom. Interpretation of CBA terms
based on practice, usage, and custom is one of the primary
reasons that the RLA dictates that CBA interpretation must be
before a specialized arbitrator and not the court system.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that these types of
disputes cannot be reviewed by the courts because the RLA
precludes review over claims where the parties disagree about the
effect of past practices on the interpretation of CBA terms.
Consol. Rail Corp., 491 U.S. at 320 (holding that the court
lacked jurisdiction to review the employees’ claims because there
were disputes about the effect of the employer’s past practices
regarding drug testing and whether its drug testing practices
were justified under the terms of the CBA).
32
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 32 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Here, Plaintiffs cite to a letter from the Air Line Pilots
Association, Inc. (“ALPA”) to argue that past practices, usage,
policy, and custom would allow for the accommodations Plaintiffs
requested based on their own interpretation of the terms of the
CBA. This is a central dispute in this case. Defendants
disagree with Plaintiffs’ interpretation and argue that past
practice, usage, policy, and custom instead support the airline’s
interpretation of the CBA, not the pilots’ interpretation. As
Defendants point out, the letter specifically states that the
“ALPA cannot, however, agree to waive [United Pilot Association]
provisions as to accommodations that would adversely the [sic]
affect the contractual rights of other pilots.” (ALPA Letter for
Sambrano v. United Airlines, attached as Ex. 9 to Pl.’s Opp., ECF
No. 384-10).
The effect, if any, that the ALPA letter has on the
interpretation of the CBA at issue in this case is a matter for
the Specialized Arbitrator. The past practices, usage, policy,
and custom in the industry and how they affect interpretation of
the CBA provisions on flight scheduling and seniority as related
to Plaintiffs’ requests for exemption from vaccination are
undoubtedly in dispute. Consol. Rail Corp., 491 U.S. at 320; see
also Hinant, 2024 WL 4988391, at *3; Flanary v. USAIR, Inc., 1997
WL 364090, *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 1997) (finding the flight
attendant’s claim was preempted under the RLA because of
33
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 33 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

questions about the effect of practice, custom, and usage on the
existing collective bargaining agreement, even though no specific
section of the CBA directly addressed plaintiff’s claim).
These disputes based on past practices and custom go to the
heart of why the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. The
purpose of the RLA’s exclusivity provision is to ensure
appropriate consideration of past practices, usage, policy, and
custom be considered in analyzing and interpreting collective
bargaining agreements. The CBA requires arbitration of such
claims before a Systems Board of Adjustment Arbitrator to allow
for proper evaluation of past practices, usage, policy, and
custom with respect to how the terms in the CBA are understood
and used in the industry. (CBA at §1-H, Expedited Arbitration,
ECF No. 378-10).
C. Plaintiffs’ Failure-To-Accommodate Claims In The
Context Of The COVID-19 Pandemic
Other Courts have ruled similarly with nearly identical
facts. In Odell v. Kalitta Air, LLC, 107 F.4th 523, 532 (6th
Cir. 2024), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled
that a group of pilots’ failure-to-accommodate claims were
precluded from court review pursuant to the RLA because the
claims necessarily implicated interpretation of the CBA’s terms
regarding the pilots’ scheduling and seniority.
In Odell, the plaintiff pilots were represented by some of
34
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 34 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

the same counsel as in this case. The facts are very similar.
In Odell, the plaintiff pilots elected not to vaccinate for
COVID-19 and requested exemptions from their employer air
carrier’s mandatory vaccine requirement imposed during the global
pandemic. Id. at 531. The plaintiff pilots proposed an
accommodation of limiting their flying routes to countries that
did not impose vaccine requirements. Id. The employer denied
their requests for exemption and accommodations. Id.
The pilots sued their air carrier employer, asserting
various claims including Title VII and ADA claims for failure-to-
accommodate the unvaccinated pilots based on their religious
beliefs and their alleged disabilities.
The district court ruled that the pilot’s failure-to-
accommodate claims were precluded from court review pursuant to
the RLA. Id.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Id.
at 531-32. The Appellate Court ruled that the plaintiffs’
failure-to-accommodate claims required interpretation of the
existing collective bargaining agreement, specifically with
respect to seniority, bidding, and scheduling of the pilots’
routes. Id. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the
courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the pilots’
failure-to-accommodate claims and that such claims were precluded
from review pursuant to the RLA. Id. at 531-32.
35
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 35 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Here, the facts are nearly identical. Plaintiffs Espinosa
and Saiki requested that the Hawaiian Defendants allow them to
fly unvaccinated and to fly only on specified routes. Just as in
Odell, there are disputes as to whether Plaintiffs Espinosa and
Saiki’s requested accommodations require interpretation of the
terms of the CBA regarding seniority and bidding provisions.
Plaintiffs’ attempts to distinguish this case from Odell are
not persuasive. As explained in the lower court decision, when a
potential accommodation could interfere with a seniority scheme
set forth in a CBA, it is necessary to interpret the applicable
CBA because the agreement itself both creates and defines the
scope of the employees’ seniority rights. Odell v. Kalitta Air,
LLC, 678 F.Supp.3d 904, 918 (E.D. Mich. 2023).
Just as in Odell, Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki’s failure-
to-accommodate claims require interpretation of the existing CBA
with respect to seniority, bidding, vacancies, and scheduling.
In evaluating their claims, the Court would need to determine
whether the CBA permitted Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki to bid
around certain routes. The Court lacks jurisdiction over such
questions pursuant to the RLA, because interpretation of the CBA
is required to resolve the claims. See Stanley v. ExpressJet
Airlines, Inc., 808 Fed. Appx. 351, 356 (6th Cir. 2020).
Evaluation of the type of accommodations that were available
to the Plaintiffs in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic is
36
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 36 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

precluded from court review pursuant to the RLA. These claims
require interpretation of terms in the existing Collective
Bargaining Agreement and such interpretations must be conducted
before the Systems Board of Adjustment Arbitrator as agreed to in
the CBA.
Other Federal District Courts have ruled that similar
failure-to-accommodate claims against transportation carriers in
the context of the COVID-19 pandemic are precluded from court
review. The District Courts have found that plaintiffs’ failure-
to-accommodate claims implicate CBA provisions regarding
scheduling, bidding, routes, and compensation. Such claims
require interpretation of collective bargaining agreements for
which the courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction. Whitford v.
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 2024 WL 4216050, at *6 (W.D.N.Y.
Sept. 17, 2024); Grindling v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., 2024
WL 4164234, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2024); see also Saliba v.
American Airlines, Inc., 2022 WL 4131485, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept.
12, 2022).
The Court agrees with the reasoning in Odell, 107 F.4th at
532, Whitford, 2024 WL 4216050, at *6 , and Grindling, 2024 WL
4164234, at *3. Plaintiffs’ failure-to-accommodate claims are
precluded from court review pursuant to the RLA.
37
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 37 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

D. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Distinguishable From Intentional
Discrimination Causes Of Action
Plaintiffs primarily rely on cases that have ruled that
intentional discrimination causes of action are generally not
precluded from court review by the RLA. (Pl.’s Opp. at pp. 17-
20, ECF No. 384).
In Felt v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 60 F.3d
1416, 1420 (9th Cir. 1995), as a matter of first impression, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Title VII religious
discrimination claims are generally not precluded by the RLA
because these types of claims typically exist entirely
independent of the collective bargaining agreement and usually do
not require interpretation of CBA terms. See also Saridakis v.
United Airlines, 166 F.3d 1272, 1277 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding
federal disability discrimination claim did not require
interpretation of CBA).
Here, Plaintiffs’ causes of action in Count I, however, are
not intentional discrimination claims. Rather, Count I is
premised solely on Defendants’ alleged failure to provide a
requested accommodation.
There is no intentional discrimination claim. Plaintiffs
have brought only failure-to-accommodate claims where they have
placed the interpretation of multiple provisions of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement in dispute. See Sjoberg v.
38
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 38 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

United Airlines, Inc., 2024 WL 4219736, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Sept.
17, 2024), holding that the RLA bars court review of
discrimination claims where “Plaintiff puts interpretations of
provisions of the [collective bargaining agreement] at the center
of this dispute”).
The questions here concerning the availability of the
Plaintiffs’ requested accommodations and the evaluation of undue
hardship based on disputed interpretations of the seniority,
bidding, and vacancy provisions distinguish Plaintiffs’ causes of
action from Felt and Norris.
IV. Plaintiffs’ Request For Jurisdictional Discovery And For
Leave To Amend The December 22, 2022 Complaint
A. Jurisdictional Discovery Is Not Warranted
In their Opposition, Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki request
jurisdictional discovery for the first time, despite the
discovery deadline being closed for more than six months since
March 14, 2025. (Pl.’s Opp. at p. 25, ECF No. 384; see Minute
Order, ECF No. 182).
Plaintiffs have not established good cause to amend the
scheduling order to allow for additional discovery. Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992)
(explaining that good cause is required to amend the Rule 16
scheduling order). Jurisdictional discovery is not warranted.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that it is
39
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 39 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

not for the courts to determine whether a claim actually violates
a term of the collective bargaining agreement. The task of the
Court is merely to determine if interpretation of the CBA is
required to adjudicate a plaintiff’s claim or whether a provision
in a CBA arguably disposes of a plaintiff’s claim. Schurke, 898
F.3d at 924. The question before the Court is the legal question
of whether the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement
requires interpretation in the context of Plaintiffs’ requested
accommodations and the undue hardship standard. The Court finds
that the CBA requires interpretation and jurisdictional discovery
will not alter the determination.
B. Leave To Amend The Complaint Is Not Warranted
In their Opposition, Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki also
request leave to amend the December 22, 2022 Complaint to add a
claim for intentional discrimination. (Pl.’s Opp. at p. 26, ECF
No. 384).
Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the Complaint is
untimely. The Complaint in this case was filed nearly three
years ago on December 22, 2022. The deadline for seeking
amendment to the Complaint closed more than two years ago on
August 8, 2023. The Rule 16 Scheduling Order has been continued
and altered numerous times. The Court has previously denied
Plaintiffs’ request to reopen the deadline and amend the
40
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 40 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

Complaint due to Plaintiffs’ lack of diligence.
Plaintiffs’ counsel has been aware of the potential
applicability of the RLA in this case since well before the
filing of Defendants’ Motion, for which Defendants were given
leave of Court. Plaintiffs’ counsel, John C. Sullivan, was
counsel for plaintiffs in Odell v. Kalitta Air, LLC, 107 F.4th
523, 532 (6th Cir. 2024), cited above, which was argued on March
21, 2024, and decided by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on
July 9, 2024.
Plaintiffs characterize Defendants’ RLA Motion as “late-
filed,” but defenses based on lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, such as preclusion under the RLA, can be raised at
any time and can never be waived or forfeited by the parties.
See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Pearson v.
Northwest Airlines, Inc., 659 F.Supp.2d 1084, 1088 n.3 (C.D. Cal.
2009).
Plaintiffs have not established good cause required to amend
the scheduling order to assert a new cause of action after nearly
three years of litigation. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608 (explaining
that a plaintiff must first establish good cause pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(b) to amend the scheduling order prior to seeking
amendment of a pleading pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)).
41
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 41 of 42
PageID.<pageID>

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction Against Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki (ECF No. 378)
is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Complaint is DENIED.
Count I in the Complaint (ECF No. 1) as to Plaintiffs
Espinosa and Saiki is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 10, 2025, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Riki O’Hailpin; Nina Arizumi; Robert Espinosa; Erwin Young;
Puanani Badiang; Sabrina Franks; Ronald Lum; Dan Saiki; Brandee
Aukai vs. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; Hawaiian Holdings, Inc., 22-
cv-00532 HG-WRP; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES,
INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION AGAINST PLAINTIFFS SAIKI AND
ESPINOSA (ECF No. 378)
42
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 402 Filed 12/10/25 Page 42 of 42
PageID.<pageID>