Former Pilot Adds to Arguments in American Airlines ESG Case

In another effort to get their client’s case to court, attorneys representing former American Airlines pilot Bryan P. Spence filed an additional document this week, adding to their request for a Texas federal court to deny a motion to dismiss the case.

The plaintiff’s attorneys in Spence v. American Airlines Inc. et al. had initially responded to the defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 29. They represent an airline pilot suing two American Airlines Inc. defined contribution retirement plans for defaulting him and other participants into underperforming funds that utilize environmental, social and governance factors in investment selection.

Spence’s legal team, in the new filing to the Fort Worth Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, argued that legal points raised in a different Texas district also support denial of the motion to dismiss.

The brief cited a September 29 ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas that denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in a separate case, Laliberte et al. v. Quanta Services Inc. et al. Spence’s filing claims the ruling in Laliberte also applies to Spence’s case because the two complaints are based on similar claims of fiduciary breach.

“The court … concluded that the [Laliberte] complaint alleged sufficient facts to reasonably infer imprudence and denied the motion to dismiss,” attorneys for Spence wrote in their October 9 filing.

American Airlines last month filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Spence against the company and its 401(k) plans for allegedly defaulting him and other participants into underperforming funds run by managers using ESG factors in their decision making.

“In the notice, the plaintiffs pointed out similarities between the two cases and the motions to dismiss in those cases,” says Douglas Neville, practice group leader at law firm Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC, which is not involved in either case, by email. “The plaintiffs undoubtedly hope the similarities will persuade the court to rule in a similar fashion and deny the [Spence] defendants’ motion to dismiss.”

Neville adds, “Given that motions to dismiss are rarely successful to begin with, the plaintiffs presumably believe that the supplemental authority will make it even more likely that the court will deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss.”

Spence and the purported class of participants is represented by attorneys from law firms Hacker Stephens LLP, based in Austin, Texas and by Sharp Law LLP, based in Prairie Village, Kansas. The defendants are represented by attorneys with law firms Kelly Hart & Hallman, based in Fort Worth, Texas, and O’Melveny & Myers LLP, based in Washington, D.C.

Attorneys for neither the defendants nor the plaintiffs responded to requests for comment.