First, the ABX case was filed in federal district court in Ohio. Although efforts to locate the case report failed, even without reading it, if the court applied any State's law, it surely would have been Ohio law, not Nevada. The point is, the place of refusal to violate safety rules, as a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine, varies by State. As noted earlier, the forum isn't the place for briefing Nevada law, but I can say the result under Ohio law would not be controlling.
I guess you don't know how courts work.
It's a
Federal District Court. It's not going to apply Ohio's law, or Nevada's law, or California law, or Texas law. There is a reason why we have State courts and Federal courts!
And maybe you should actually read the court decision before commenting further.
Airline Professionals Association, Teamsters Local Union No. 1224 v. ABX Air, Inc.
As I wrote in my initial post, a private individual cannot sue another private entity for relief on the basis of FARs. The relevant claims in APA vs ABX was thrown out
precisely for that reason:
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
...
In Count One, the Union claims that by requiring Captain Homme to admit
wrongdoing or face termination, ABX violated: (1) the “public policy of the
United States as set forth in the FARs”; (2) “a crewmember’s obligations under
the FARS”; (3) ABX’s FOM and AOM; and (4) “the crewmember’s obligations
under the [CBA].”
...
1. No Private Right of Action Exists to Enforce the FARs.
...
ABX correctly argues, however, that the Union’s alleged cause of action
pursuant to sections 91.3(a) and 121.537(e) is not proper because
no private right of action exists to enforce the regulations. “Federal
regulations cannot themselves create a cause of action; that is a
function of the legislature.” Smith v. Dearborn Fin. Servs., Inc., 982 F.2d
976, 979 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Stewart v. Bernstein, 769 F.2d 1088,
1092-93 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1985)).
...
Although the Sixth Circuit has not squarely addressed whether the FARs
can be enforced by a private right of action, a developing consensus among
the federal courts hold that a private right of action does not exist.
See Brown v. Byard, 600 F.Supp. 396, 397 (S.D. Ohio 1984) (“The Federal
Aviation Act clearly does not expressly provide for a private cause of action
for violations of the Act.”);
...
Thus, to the extent that Count One of the Union’s Amended Complaint is
based on a violation of the FARs, that claim is dismissed.