UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALI BAHREMAN, No. 23-16156

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00437- v. ART-DJA ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC; TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OPINION OF AMERICA LOCAL 577,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Anne R. Traum, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 7, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed December 10, 2024

Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Lucy H. Koh, and Anthony D. Johnstone, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Johnstone 2 BAHREMAN V. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC

SUMMARY *

Railway Labor Act

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Allegiant Air and the Transport Workers Union in Allegiant flight attendant Ali Bahreman’s action alleging that the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Allegiant and the Union violated the Railway Labor Act of 1926. The Agreement gives employees a choice between paying dues to join the Union or paying agency fees without joining the Union. The Agreement’s enforcement mechanism gives employees a third choice: pay neither dues nor fees, and lose bidding privileges for work schedules. Bahreman chose not to pay any fees, and lost his bidding privileges. The panel held that the Railway Labor Act does not prohibit a collective bargaining agreement that conditions seniority-based bidding privileges—not continued employment—on payment of either union dues or agency fees. Addressing Bahreman’s claims that the Agreement’s suspension of bidding privileges for nonpayment of agency fees violates the Act, the panel held that (1) the Agreement does not violate the Act’s anti-coercion provision because it does not induce employees to join the Union, (2) the Act does not prohibit unions from reaching collective bargaining * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. BAHREMAN V. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC 3

agreements with different terms other than those that the Act explicitly permits, and (3) the Union did not violate its duty of fair representation because the Union enforced the Agreement equally among all members of the bargaining unit.

COUNSEL Matthew B. Gilliam (argued) and Milton L. Chappell, National Right to Work Legal Foundation Inc., Springfield, Virginia, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Andrew D. McClintock (argued), Ford & Harrison LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Jacquelyn L. Thompson, Ford & Harrison LLP, Washington, D.C.; Proloy K. Das, I, Ford & Harrison LLP, Hartford, Connecticut; Joshua A. Sliker, Jackson Lewis PC, Las Vegas, Nevada; Osnat K. Rind (argued) and Mark Richard, Phillips Richard & Rind PA, Miami, Florida; Richard G. McCracken, McCracken Stemerman & Holsberry LLP, Oakland, California; for Defendants- Appellees. 4 BAHREMAN V. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC

OPINION JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judge:

The Railway Labor Act of 1926, enacted to prevent labor disputes from interrupting interstate commerce, requires carriers and their employees to resolve disagreements through collective bargaining and arbitration. Over time, Congress has tailored the Act’s terms to protect the freedom of employees to associate by joining—or not joining—labor unions. First, in response to carriers’ use of “company unions,” Congress amended the Act to forbid carriers from interfering with employee organizing. Second, in response to “free riders,” Congress amended the Act to permit carriers and unions to compel union membership through “union security agree