Perspectives: Delta’s centenary recalls turbulent legal lore

Listen to this article

Delta Air Lines is one of several local institutions celebrating a milestone anniversary this year — its 100th. E.g. Perspectives, “Mitchell Hamline at 125 learns from past litigation” in the December 15, 2025, edition of Minnesota Lawyer.

Its centenary resonates loudly here as the Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) International Airport is one of its 14 global hubs ever since its acquisition in 2008 of Minnesota-based Northwest Airlines.

From its modest beginning as a neophyte mail carrier from Atlanta, still its headquarters a century later, it has become one of the largest and most successful airlines measured by revenue and profitability.

Delta’s elevated posture is reflected in a few figures: $61.6 billion in revenue last year, a 5.6% profit margin; 103,000 employees; a fleet of 992 aircraft, about 5,000 daily flights; some 300 destinations, and about 75 gates at MSP as the largest air carrier at that airport.

Along the flight path of its growth from minor to mammoth, Delta has had its share of legal turbulence. Its centennial anniversary this year provides an opportune occasion to review some of that eclectic law and lore in federal and state appellate tribunals here.

Cascading cases

Delta is currently involved in a number of lawsuits cascading through the legal system.

One of the major ones is a consolidation of 11 separate lawsuits as of last month, with eight others on the runway, arising out of the Feb. 17, 2025, hard landing of a passenger plane flown by a Delta subsidiary, Endeavor Air, in Toronto. On a flight from the Twin Cities, the plane flipped over when it landed in a windstorm, causing injuries to at least 21 people, but fortunately no fatalities.

A number of passengers and a flight attendant have all filed lawsuits, which have all been grouped together by the federal judicial multidistrict litigation panel. It has been assigned to Judge Jerry Blackwell, along with Magistrate Judge John Docherty, in Minnesota (because the fight crew is based here and Endeavor has headquarters here) under the caption of Air Crash Toronto International Airport, February 17, 2025, MDL 3155, (D. Minn. 2025).

Delta has offered $30,000 to each passenger for a settlement, although it is not known how many, if any, have accepted while the consolidated litigation is pending.

But there is a myriad of other Delta cases that are taking place in other jurisdictions involving a variety of subjects, including:

• A $8.1 million settlement for misuse of pandemic funds.
• A $7.9 million settlement for fuel dumping on Los Angeles neighborhoods.
• A $27.3 million settlement for COVID flight cancellation refunds.
• A pending lawsuit regarding misrepresentation of premium payment for “window” seats that were not by a window.

This cascade of lawsuits is but the tip of an iceberg, which Delta unfortunately has struck along with a long line of assorted litigation by Delta and Northwest.

“That’s the Delta Spirit.”
1970 slogan

* * * * * * * * * *

“We love to fly and it shows.”
1987 slogan

* * * * * * * * * *

“Keep climbing.”
Current slogan

Delta’s decisions

Delta has been involved in a number of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court with decisions ranging encompassing a wide variety of issues over the past six-plus decades.

 Here’s a glimpse at a handful of those high court cases.

• Civil Aeronautics Board, (CAB) v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 367 U.S. 316( 1961): Regulatory board may not alter certificate of airlines without formal notice and hearing.
• Evansville Airport v. Delta Air Lines, 405 U.S. 707 (1976): Local airport fee of $1 for each passenger to be used for improvement and maintenance of the airport is unconstitutional violation of Interstate Commerce Clause.
• Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983). State Human Rights law preempted by Employee Retirement Income Act of 1964 (ERISA) regarding equal benefits for pregnancy as for other non-occupational disabilities, but disability benefits law exempt from preemption.
• Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 457 U.S. 346 (1981). Plaintiff losing case and receive nothing is not required to pay Defendant’s Rule 68 post-settlement offer costs.
• Brindahl v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., (No. 19-352). Certiorari denied for challenge to seeking exemption of airlines from state and local wage regulations.
• Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., (No. 21-396). Certiorari declined for challenge to applicability of California wage-and-hour laws to flights attendants who primarily work outside of the state.

Tax tussles 

Northwest Airlines, prior to its acquisition by Delta, was involved in several tussles over taxes.

Imposition by Minnesota of full property taxes on the Northwest airplane fleet and other property located within the state was upheld as constitutional on grounds that it did not violate the Commerce Clause in Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 219 (1944).

Arguing for tax apportionment, Northwest contended that imposing a tax on its entire 11-plane fleet, even though none of them was continuously inside the state during the tax year, violated the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14h Amendment. Applying “settled” legal principles, the Supreme Court rejected that argument on grounds that introducing a “new doctrine about tax apportionment” would cause “dislocation into the established taxing system of the state.” Although the failure to apportion results in some “conflict and confusion” among taxing powers in the various states where Northwest operates, those infirmities are “inevitable” under the federal system and do not give rise to a constitutional transgression.

The landmark ruling established the foundation for imposing property taxes on multistate businesses throughout the country, particularly on movable items like the airplanes and other transportation vehicles.

In a somewhat similar tax case decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court, Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. CIR, 265 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. 1978), the justices upheld a determination of the Tax Court affirming assessments over a two-year period of airline property tax, concluding that the value placed on the Northwest fleet for 1970 and 1971 was not excessive, although the assessment ratios were excessive.

In this case, appointment was applied for taxing airline property under a state statute enacted in 1945, after the Supreme Court decision, which allocated a fractional portion of the flight property to the relative amount of its use in Minnesota.

The court determined that the new formula that was used, known as the “California method,” for deprecation was appropriate, while the ratios were improper, but the state did not appeal the improper ratio assessments. The tax assessments were approved because the Tax Court “used the evidence judicially” and only referenced disputed evidence for “limited purposes,” which rendered its decision, based upon competent, admissible evidence.

Another Northwest tax case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, Michigan, 510 U.S. 355 (1994). The court there affirmed the airport user fees charged by the airport in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which included a portion of revenue derived from sale of non-aeronautical items and concessions at the terminal and income from car rental agencies, parking lots, restaurants, gift shops, rent-a-cart facilities, and other small vendors. The court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upheld as “reasonable” an accounting methodology that was designed to charge Northwest only for the cost of providing the particular facilities and services it uses.

Unemployment undertakings

A pair of cases pursued by Northwest employees seeking unemployment compensation benefits failed.

A group of airline attendants unsuccessfully challenged a determination by the Department of Employment & Economic Development (DEED) that they were ineligible from receiving unemployment compensation benefits when they voluntarily accepted furloughs when work was not available in Harrington v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 2007 WL 1893244 (Minn. App. 2007). The administrative determination that the flight attendants voluntarily accepted leave of absence, which barred unemployment compensation benefits, was “supported by the collective bargaining agreement … which defines voluntary furloughs and involuntary furloughs separately, with the latter being offered by the air carrier “with the intent of reducing the number of involuntary furloughs” for which benefits are permissible. Because the flight attendants took a voluntary leave of absence “when work was available,” they were ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.

Another undertaking by a Northwest pilot seeking unemployment compensation benefits also failed in Peterson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 753 N.W.2d 771. The appeal was brought by a pilot who was denied unemployment compensation benefits after he was fired for consuming alcohol in violation of a Northwest policy while on flight reserve status and then called for duty. The court rejected the pilot’s contention to apply the exemption for the then-existing “single incident” doctrine, which allows benefits for a solitary indiscretion on grounds that the pilot’s inability to fly due to the alcohol consumption, had a “significant adverse impact” on Northwest.

Worker woes

A number of cases involved woes claimed by airlines employees against first Northwest and then Delta seeking workers compensation benefits.

In Middleton v. Northwest Airlines, 600 N.W.2d 707 (Minn. 1999) the denial by the Workers Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) claimed by a widow following her husband’s suicide, who was a Northwest Airlines mechanic, due to alleged work-related stress, was reversed and remanded. The court concluded that the WCCA determination that suicide is not compensable unless it is caused by a compensable physical injury was improper. Because of “the complexity of the issues in determining whether [the] suicide was legally caused by [the] employment,” the matter was remanded.

On remand, the WCCA affirmed a determination by a compensation judge that there was insufficient evidence to establish “legal causation” [of] stress-induced suicide attributable to the employer, so benefits were denied.

The existence of a compensable injury and the calculation of the amount to which an aircraft cleaner was entitled to in her compensation claims against Northwest was addressed by the WCCA in Flaskamp v. Northwest Airlines, No. WC 06-249 (WCCA May 1, 2007). It affirmed a determination by a compensation judge that the employee suffered compensable injury to his cervical spine as a result of his work activities, which were a “contributing cause” to his need for surgery.

It also upheld a determination of using an “averaging formula” to determine the employee’s weekly wages when no evidence was submitted establishing holiday pay, vacation pay, sick leave, or specific personal leave time during the applicable 26 week period prior to the work injury.

Whether a Northwest flight attendant is entitled to health club membership reimbursement for a period following his initial return to work after a work-related injury was at issue in Asty v. Northwest Airlines, 588 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1999).

Reversing the WCCA, the Supreme Court upheld the prior determination by the compensation judge that the membership was “reasonable and necessary treatment” to assist the injured employee to return to work and continue working.

In another work-related back injury case against Northwest by a flight attendant, the WCCA upheld a determination by a compensation judge denying benefits for a lower back claim in Perpich v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 19-6317 (WCCA March 4, 2020). The court held that expert medical evidence by a board certified orthopedic surgeon warranted denial of the claim, even though the doctor did not specialize in treating low back patients and did not perform the surgical procedure that the employee had undergone to treat that condition. There was “adequate foundation for purpose of providing a medical opinion” by Delta’s expert, coupled with the absence of back pain complaints in the employee’s medical records for more than two years following the injury that allegedly was the cause.

But a flight attendant who sought workers’ compensation benefits for a skin irritation caused by contact with a work uniform failed recently in Williams v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. WC 25-6597 (WCCA, Sept. 22, 2025). Reversing a compensation judge denial of benefits, the court held that there was sufficient evidence that the attendant suffered a “work injury in connection with exposure to an irritant” in her work uniform, rejecting the expert medical witness testimony offered by Delta, which lacked proper foundation, warranting remand.

As these cases reflect, in its centennial year Delta and its Northwest compatriot have histories of turbulence in encounters with the law here in Minnesota.

RELATED: More Perspectives columns

PERSPECTIVE POINTERS

Some ‘Delta’ Songs

“Delta Dawn”: Helen Reddy #1 on chart; Tanya Tucker country song and Bette Midler’s debut album

“Delta Lady”: Joe Cocker sings, but written by Leon Russell

“The Delta Breeze”: Paying tribute to city of Sacramento by Clennon Charles

“Mississippi Delta”: Bobbie Gentry’s flip side to her “Ode to Billie Joe” hit

“Delta”: Mumford & Sons Band’s song

Marshall H. Tanick is an attorney with the Twin Cities law firm of Meyer, Njus, Tanick, Linder & Robbins, PA.