UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-20737
Summary Calendar
_____________________
ANDREA ESTELLE; SHERRYE REESE; ROXANE MIHEALSICK,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-96-CV-4346)
_________________________________________________________________
May 20, 1999
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andrea Estelle, Sherrye Reese, and Roxane Mihealsick appeal
the adverse summary judgment in their action under the Railway
Labor Act (RLA). (Because the district court held that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over the RLA claims, it also dismissed
the state law claims. The latter are not in issue.)
We review a summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the district court. E.g., OHM Remediation Services v.
Evans Cooperage Co., Inc., 116 F.3d 1574, 1579 (5th Cir. 1997).
Such judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
Estelle and Reese claim that Continental violated 45 U.S.C. §
152 by removing them from service as flight attendants for 11 days
with pay, because they actively opposed a new collective bargaining
agreement; Mihealsick claims that, for the same reason, other
actions by Continental forced her to return from the training
center to service as a flight attendant. The district court
granted summary judgment because plaintiffs’ claims fell within
none of the exceptions to the System Board of Adjustment’s
exclusive jurisdiction over disputes under RLA collective
bargaining agreements. Pursuant to our de novo review of the record
and our review of the briefs, summary judgment was proper, for
essentially the reasons stated by the district court. See Estelle
v. Continental Airlines, Inc., No. H-96-4346, memorandum and order
(July 16, 1998).
AFFIRMED
- 2 -