Enough thread drift for me
Like two ships passing in the night. And neither of them is the Red Herring.
Peekay4, maybe you thought the context was limited to the ABX case in which, as you note, federal subject matter jurisdiction existed (it was an action for injunctive and declaratory relief under federal law, you are correct, sir). However, actually the discussion here was broader than the narrow gauge you have insisted upon. That is, the pilot in the Allegiant case has filed a suit in state court in which claims are asserted under Nevada state law. The specific point was whether or not Nevada, as a state adherent to the at-will doctrine, would countenance such claims. In that context - not limited to the ABX case at all - the dismissal won by the defendant in the ABX case is not really pertinent. Despite the ruling in the ABX case -- that a claim for injunctive and declaratory relief under the federal statute failed because there is no such private right of action under the FARs -- Nevada, which almost certainly has some public policy exceptions to the employment at-will doctrine, still could recognize the FARs as a source of public policy (for purposes of wrongful termination claims under Nevada law).
Anyway, at least no one has claimed that this drift of the thread will not be complete until someone tries to explain the derivation of the phrase "red herring" (it may not be printable in a family-friendly forum such as PPRuNe, regardless. . . )