Arbitration-Excluded Last Chance Agreements Still Trigger RLA Major/Minor Jurisdictional Analysis; Minor-Dispute Animus Exception Requires Evidence

I. Introduction

In Reardon v. American Airlines, Incorporated (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2026) (per curiam), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), of Scott Reardon’s federal claim alleging retaliatory termination under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 152, Third & Fourth.

Reardon, a long-time American Airlines facilities mechanic and union representative (Transport Workers Union Local 591), was terminated in 2023 for violating a Last Chance Agreement (LCA) that had reinstated him after an earlier termination for theft. He contended his termination was retaliatory and motivated by anti-union animus. American responded that the dispute was “minor” under the RLA and therefore within the exclusive arbitral regime, depriving the federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The appeal presented two key issues: (1) whether the district court properly resolved the case under Rule 12(b)(1) rather than Rule 12(b)(6) (i.e., whether jurisdiction was “intertwined” with the merits), and (2) whether the dispute was “minor,” and if so, whether it fit an exception—especially the anti-union animus exception.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed on three principal grounds:

  1. The jurisdictional issue was not intertwined with the merits under the circuit’s three-factor framework, so Rule 12(b)(1) was the proper vehicle.
  2. Even though the LCA purported to exclude challenges “via the contractual grievance procedure,” that exclusion did not itself create federal jurisdiction; instead, the court still analyzed the dispute under the RLA’s major/minor framework and concluded American had an arguable basis under the LCA/CBA for the termination—making it a minor dispute.
  3. Reardon failed to produce evidence supporting the anti-union animus exception in the face of American’s factual 12(b)(1) attack supported by exhibits; conclusory allegations were insufficient.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

  • Sw. Airlines Pilots Ass'n v. Sw. Airlines Co., 120 F.4th 474 (5th Cir. 2024): The court relied heavily on this decision for the RLA’s major/minor taxonomy, the “arguable basis” test for minor disputes, and the statement that retaliatory-firing claims tied to union activity are “routinely treated as minor disputes” absent an exception. It also supplied the framework for understanding exclusive arbitral jurisdiction and the animus exception.
  • BNSF Ry. Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers - Transp. Div., 973 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2020): Cited for the distinction between major and minor disputes and for the proposition that a defendant’s burden to show a dispute is minor is “relatively light.”
  • Wright v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 990 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2021): Used for two propositions: (1) district-court jurisdiction over major disputes is limited (e.g., status-quo injunctions pending RLA procedures), and (2) a retaliatory-firing theory can still be minor even when pleaded as “independent” of a CBA; also for the interpretive tie-breaker that doubts are resolved in favor of “minor.”
  • Bhd. of Ry. Carmen (Div. of TCU) v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 894 F.2d 1463 (5th Cir. 1990): Cited for the “ineffective or unavailable” dispute-resolution exception to exclusive arbitral jurisdiction and for rejecting attempts to reframe a dispute as a direct RLA claim to avoid the minor-dispute category.
  • Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Loc. 351 v. Cooper Nat. Res., Inc., 163 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 1999): Important to the opinion’s treatment of LCAs: an LCA may supplement and even supersede a CBA because it reflects the parties’ own construction of the CBA, supporting the court’s conclusion that interpretation of the LCA can control the dispute’s characterization.
  • CareFlite v. Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, 612 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2010): Central to the decision’s “new rule” aspect. The court accepted CareFlite’s core holding that parties may contractually exclude certain grievances from contractual arbitration, but it confronted the split between concurrences on jurisdictional consequences. The panel expressly adopted CareFlite Judge Elrod’s approach: even if arbitration is contractually excluded, courts still determine jurisdiction using the RLA major/minor framework (rather than deeming such disputes non-minor by definition). The court contrasted this with Judge Dennis’s view that excluded disputes do not arise from CBA rights and thus cannot be minor.
  • Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Lab. Execs.' Ass'n, 491 U.S. 299 (1989): Invoked within the CareFlite discussion for the concept that minor disputes are those “arising or growing out of” a CBA.
  • Carmona v. Sw. Airlines Co., 536 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2008): Quoted for the idea that a dispute is minor when it can be conclusively resolved by interpreting an existing CBA.
  • Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs & Trainmen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 31 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2022): Anchored the court’s strict approach to the anti-union animus exception, emphasizing it applies only in “exceptional circumstances” and covers both direct and clandestine union-targeting conduct.
  • M.D.C.G. v. United States, 956 F.3d 762 (5th Cir. 2020); In re S. Recycling, L.L.C., 982 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2020); Pickett v. Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr., 37 F.4th 1013 (5th Cir. 2022): These cases supplied the Fifth Circuit’s test for determining when jurisdiction is “intertwined” with the merits and therefore whether dismissal should proceed under 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6).
  • Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998); Shirley v. Maxicare Tex., Inc., 921 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1991): Cited for the sequencing and necessity of resolving subject-matter jurisdiction before reaching merits-based dismissal.
  • Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1981); Kling v. Hebert, 60 F.4th 281 (5th Cir. 2023); Evans v. Tubbe, 657 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1981): These cases governed the mechanics and burdens of facial vs. factual 12(b)(1) attacks, including the critical point that in a factual attack “no presumptive truthfulness” attaches to jurisdictional allegations and the plaintiff must counter with evidence.
  • Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393 (5th Cir. 2021): Used to justify the panel’s decision to address the jurisdictional/merits intertwining argument notwithstanding inadequate briefing, because jurisdictional questions are an exception to ordinary forfeiture principles.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Rule 12(b)(1) vs. 12(b)(6): when jurisdiction is (not) intertwined with the merits

Reardon argued the district court should have “assumed” jurisdiction and treated American’s motion as a 12(b)(6) merits attack because jurisdiction was intertwined with the merits. The Fifth Circuit applied the three-factor test described in In re S. Recycling, L.L.C.:

  1. Different sources for jurisdiction and the claim? This factor favored Reardon because both jurisdiction and the claim arose under the RLA. But, per Pickett v. Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr., that is not dispositive.
  2. Can the jurisdictional issue be extricated from the merits? This factor favored American. The court reasoned that whether the dispute is minor (and whether an exception applies) is separable from the merits of the retaliatory-termination theory, even if the facts overlap.
  3. Does judicial economy favor early resolution of jurisdiction? This factor favored American because the major/minor classification is a threshold, primarily legal inquiry that can avoid premature merits rulings, consistent with Ramming v. United States and Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't.

With two factors against intertwining, the panel held the district court correctly proceeded under Rule 12(b)(1).

2. Factual 12(b)(1) attack: the evidentiary burden shift mattered

American submitted seven exhibits (including the LCA, CBA, Admirals Club guidelines, and declarations), making the motion a factual 12(b)(1) attack under Paterson v. Weinberger. In that posture, the district court could weigh evidence (Kling v. Hebert), and Reardon bore the burden to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. His failure to submit counter-evidence became decisive, especially for the animus-exception theory.

3. Contractual exclusion from grievance/arbitration did not itself create federal jurisdiction

Reardon relied on an LCA clause in which he and the Union agreed not to challenge the discipline or “the terms of this Agreement” via the CBA’s grievance procedure (which culminates in “System Board of Adjustment/Arbitration” review).

The panel accepted (via CareFlite v. Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO) that parties may exclude categories of disputes from contractual arbitration. The crucial move, however, was the court’s adoption of Judge Elrod’s approach from CareFlite: even if arbitration is excluded by contract, courts still determine federal jurisdiction using the RLA’s major/minor framework rather than treating excluded disputes as categorically outside the “minor” label.

In practical terms, the opinion separates two questions:

  • Arbitrability by contract (what the CBA/LCA channels require or exclude), and
  • Subject-matter jurisdiction under the RLA (whether the dispute is major or minor, and whether an exception applies).

4. Why the dispute was “minor”: the “arguable basis” test applied to the LCA/CBA

The court treated the LCA as supplementing (and potentially superseding) the CBA, per Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Loc. 351 v. Cooper Nat. Res., Inc. It then applied the “arguable basis” test from Sw. Airlines Pilots Ass'n v. Sw. Airlines Co.: a dispute is minor if the employer has at least an arguable basis for its conduct in the express or implied terms of the parties’ agreement(s).

The panel emphasized that Reardon did not dispute he entered the Admirals Club, and that for a non-traveling employee this was a basis for termination under the LCA. Because resolving the claim required interpreting and applying the LCA’s “single incident” termination trigger (i.e., “just cause” under the LCA’s terms), the dispute was minor under Carmona v. Sw. Airlines Co..

The court further reinforced this conclusion with the Fifth Circuit’s broader pattern: retaliatory-firing claims based on union affiliation are “routinely treated” as minor disputes (Sw. Airlines Pilots Ass'n), and any doubt is resolved as minor (Wright v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.).

5. Why the anti-union animus exception failed: conclusory allegations and no counter-evidence

The animus exception—where a defendant’s actions “reflect antiunion animus or undermine the effective functioning of the union”—was treated as narrow and reserved for “exceptional circumstances” (Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs & Trainmen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.).

Reardon alleged he was targeted as a “thorn-in-the-side” union representative and that American used “false and mendacious” accusations to force him out. But the district court, weighing evidence submitted by American and noting Reardon’s lack of counter-evidence, found:

  • He was terminated after violating the LCA;
  • The alleged sources of animus were themselves former union members; and
  • Two other union members placed on an LCA for the same theft complied and remained employed.

Under Evans v. Tubbe and Paterson v. Weinberger, no presumption of truth attached to Reardon’s jurisdictional allegations in the face of a factual 12(b)(1) attack, and his failure to submit evidentiary support was “fatal” to the exception claim.

C. Impact

The opinion’s most significant prospective effect is its explicit endorsement of the CareFlite (Elrod concurrence) approach: even where an LCA (or similar agreement) purports to exclude disputes from the CBA’s grievance/arbitration procedure, that exclusion does not automatically open the federal courthouse door. Parties and courts must still classify the dispute as major or minor under the RLA, and minor disputes remain outside federal jurisdiction absent a recognized exception.

Additional practical consequences include:

  • Early jurisdictional resolution is encouraged in RLA cases: employers may use factual 12(b)(1) motions supported by documents (CBA/LCA and declarations) to force plaintiffs to come forward with evidence at the outset, particularly on exceptions like anti-union animus.
  • LCAs are treated as interpretive anchors: because LCAs can supplement or supersede CBAs, disputes about discipline under an LCA will often be deemed minor where the employer can articulate an arguable contractual basis.
  • The animus exception is evidentiary, not rhetorical: plaintiffs should anticipate that conclusory allegations of retaliation or hostility will not carry the burden in a factual 12(b)(1) posture.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Major” vs. “minor” disputes (RLA): “Major” disputes involve forming or changing a collective bargaining agreement; “minor” disputes involve applying or interpreting an existing agreement (including an LCA that supplements/supersedes it). “Minor” disputes generally go to mandatory arbitration, not federal court.
  • “Arguable basis” test: A dispute is “minor” if the employer can point to a plausible contractual basis (express or implied) for what it did. The employer’s burden is “relatively light.”
  • Rule 12(b)(1) “facial” vs. “factual” attacks: A facial attack argues the complaint’s allegations, even if true, do not establish jurisdiction. A factual attack introduces evidence (documents, declarations), and then the plaintiff must produce evidence to prove jurisdiction; the court may weigh evidence rather than assume the complaint is true.
  • Jurisdiction “intertwined” with the merits: Sometimes deciding jurisdiction effectively decides the merits, and courts treat the motion as 12(b)(6). Here, the court held the major/minor classification and exception analysis could be decided separately and early, so 12(b)(1) applied.
  • Anti-union animus exception: Even if a dispute is minor, a federal court may intervene in exceptional cases where conduct targets the union or undermines its functioning. This case stresses that proving the exception requires evidence, especially when the employer makes a factual 12(b)(1) challenge.

V. Conclusion

Reardon v. American Airlines, Incorporated reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s strict jurisdictional channeling of RLA “minor” disputes into arbitration and clarifies that contractually excluding arbitration in an LCA does not bypass the RLA’s major/minor framework. The decision also underscores two litigation realities: (1) RLA jurisdictional disputes can be resolved under Rule 12(b)(1) when not intertwined with the merits, and (2) plaintiffs invoking the anti-union animus exception must produce evidence when confronted with a factual jurisdictional attack—conclusory allegations will not suffice.