Illinois Case Adds Pressure to Airline Industry’s Labor Pay Practices
American Airlines is facing a federal lawsuit that could reshape how airlines compensate flight attendants for overtime and on-duty work performed outside of flight time, including boarding and airport duties.
The case, filed by two flight attendants based at Chicago O’Hare International Airport, survived an early dismissal attempt last week after a federal judge in Illinois allowed the claims to proceed. The lawsuit argues that American Airlines failed to properly compensate workers under Illinois overtime law, despite operating under a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement that governs pay and scheduling.
The legal challenge comes as airlines across the United States face growing scrutiny over whether long-standing compensation systems comply with state labor laws. Similar lawsuits have recently targeted major carriers, potentially exposing the industry to broader financial and operational risks.
Flight Attendants Argue Airport Duties Should Count Toward Overtime
The lawsuit centers on whether certain work performed on the ground should qualify as compensable time under Illinois law.
Plaintiffs Nicholas Greve and Jeffrey Nissen claim that duties carried out at the airport — including boarding-related responsibilities — should count as hours worked and therefore qualify for overtime compensation when weekly totals exceed 40 hours.
The case, titled Nicholas Greve and Jeffrey Nissen v. American Airlines, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under case number 1:26-cv-00626.
Flight attendants at major U.S. airlines are typically compensated based on flight hours rather than total duty time. Industry contracts often distinguish between airborne time and time spent preparing aircraft, boarding passengers, or waiting at airports.
The plaintiffs argue that this compensation structure conflicts with Illinois labor law, which mandates overtime pay at one-and-a-half times an employee’s regular rate once weekly work exceeds 40 hours.
Illinois law also treats overtime protections as mandatory and non-waivable, meaning employers cannot avoid the requirement through private agreements or negotiated labor contracts.
State Labor Laws Increasingly Clash With Airline Union Contracts
The dispute highlights a growing legal tension between nationally negotiated airline labor agreements and state-level wage laws.
Most airline pay structures are established through collective bargaining agreements negotiated between airlines and unions on a nationwide basis. American Airlines flight attendants are represented by a union contract that governs wages, scheduling rules, and compensation formulas.
However, flight attendants are based in states with differing labor laws, including Illinois, California, and New Jersey, while routinely working across multiple jurisdictions during trips.
That complexity has created openings for lawsuits based on state overtime statutes rather than federal labor standards.
Although the federal Fair Labor Standards Act contains exemptions for airline employees regarding overtime requirements, those exemptions do not automatically override state labor laws. Plaintiffs in recent cases have increasingly focused on state protections that may provide broader employee rights.
Under Illinois law, employers found liable for unpaid overtime may face substantial financial exposure. Workers can recover triple the amount of unpaid wages, along with an additional 5% penalty for every month wages remain unpaid, subject to a three-year look-back period.
Boarding Pay Structure Faces Additional Scrutiny
The lawsuit also raises questions about American Airlines’ newer boarding pay system for flight attendants.
American introduced boarding pay to compensate flight attendants for time spent assisting passengers before departure. However, plaintiffs argue that the current structure may still fall short of Illinois overtime requirements.
According to the complaint, boarding pay is compensated at 50% of the regular hourly rate, while Illinois law requires overtime hours beyond 40 per week to be paid at 1.5 times the regular rate.
That difference forms a key part of the underpayment argument now before the court.
Legal experts say the dispute may ultimately depend on how courts define “hours worked” and determine the “regular rate” under the airline’s collective bargaining agreement, which contains multiple pay categories and compensation formulas.
Railway Labor Act Could Still Redirect the Case
Although the plaintiffs cleared the initial hurdle to keep the lawsuit alive, the case could still face procedural obstacles later in the litigation process.
A central issue is whether resolving the claims would require detailed interpretation of the union contract. If so, the dispute could be redirected under the Railway Labor Act, which governs labor disagreements in the airline industry and often channels disputes into arbitration-style proceedings rather than state court litigation.
Courts generally distinguish between cases that merely reference labor agreements and those that require active interpretation of disputed contract terms.
According to View from the Wing, a state law claim can continue if the court only needs to review payroll records, hours worked, and statutory requirements. However, if judges must interpret complex provisions within the labor agreement itself, federal labor law may preempt the claims.
A previous example cited by observers is Adames v. Executive Airlines, in which Puerto Rico-based overtime claims were preempted because resolving the dispute required interpreting industry compensation practices and contract provisions involving flight time, duty guarantees, overtime formulas, and base pay calculations.
For now, American Airlines faces the prospect of continued litigation that could influence how airlines nationwide structure pay for flight attendants and other mobile workforces operating across state lines.
