Maybe its just my layperson reading of that decision, but I read it as Polar saying "they can't order us to do things if it hurts our business" and the judges response was "no, they are under no duty to protect your business, go away". It also seemed to read as bringing the actions against the individuals was pointless as there was no recourse in the law against them individually.
I doubt that means there are no rights for AOC holders or pilots - unless you can show they actually acted without the authority of the act you are up for a tough argument. The pattern of behaviour argument also sounds thin unless you can prove there was malice intended, and not just a battle of egos and opinions.