News-Record.com

TradeWinds Airlines didn't violate North Carolina law or public policy when it fired a flight engineer who said he was too tired to carry out an assignment.

So said the N.C. Court of Appeals in a unanimous ruling issued yesterday, backing up a 2006 verdict by Guilford County Superior Court Judge Stuart Albright.

This was a complex case in which both parties raised several issues on appeal.

I'll briefly focus on what the appeals court, in its opinion authored by Judge Wanda Bryant, called the critical question: whether defendant's termination of plaintiff based on his refusal to fly a non-revenue flight (or ferry flight) back to Greensboro on February 27, 2000, was in contravention of North Carolina public policy.

The plaintiff was John R. McDonnell, a flight engineer for TradeWinds for more than two years at the time of the incident. The defendant is TradeWinds, an air-freight and charter carrier based at PTIA.

McDonnell was tired from a long work schedule when he was asked to ferry a plane, without passengers, from Burlington, Vermont, to Greensboro. He refused and was promptly fired.

Later he sued for wrongful termination -- a tough claim to pursue in North Carolina, where employment generally can be terminated at will when there's no contract. "This is a bright-line rule with very limited exceptions," the court said.

One of those exceptions, according to case law, is when an employer's actions are contrary to law or public policy. It was there that McDonnell lodged his claim.

McDonnell cited case law acknowledging that federal laws and regulations are binding on state courts, referring in this instance to FAA regs setting out minimum rest requirements for flight crews. The appeals court was not persuaded of the applicability in this case.

One problem for McDonnell noted by the court:

"The FAA Office of Chief Counsel offers legal interpretations of Federal Aviation Regulations, and has consistently refused to apply an interpretation that ferry flights occurring after Part 121 flights count toward flight time limitations and rest requirements. While we note that currently there is debate to change the FAA's interpretation of the rest requirements under these types of circumstances, we will accept the FAA's reading of their regulations."

There are other nuances that make this opinion worth reading if you're interested in employ-at-will issues and public safety concerns.

I would worry about an overworked flight crew descending over Greensboro for a landing at PTI, but, of course, it's impossible to understand all the circumstances of this story from the few pages presented here.

One thing is clear: The appeals court affirmed Albright's ruling, which means he correctly applied the law.