Susan Corbin, director of the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO), has formally moved to dismiss a federal lawsuit brought by a prominent airline industry trade group, asserting that the state’s Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA) does not unconstitutionally infringe upon federal authority or disrupt airline operations. In a comprehensive brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Corbin argued that the industry’s legal challenge lacks a factual foundation and fails to prove that the state-mandated leave policy creates the kind of "significant impact" on prices, routes, or services that would trigger federal preemption. This legal confrontation marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle between state-level labor protections and the federal statutes that govern the nation’s aviation and transportation infrastructure.
The lawsuit, initiated by a coalition representing major air carriers, seeks to exempt the airline industry from Michigan’s recently reinstated sick leave requirements. The plaintiffs contend that the Earned Sick Time Act is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA), arguing that a "patchwork" of varying state leave laws makes the efficient management of flight crews—who frequently traverse state lines—operationally impossible. However, the state’s defense maintains that the ESTA is a valid exercise of Michigan’s police powers intended to protect the health and welfare of all workers within its borders, regardless of their industry.
The Legislative Evolution of the Earned Sick Time Act
To understand the current legal friction, it is necessary to examine the tumultuous history of Michigan’s sick leave legislation. The Earned Sick Time Act was originally born from a 2018 petition drive. Under Michigan’s constitution, when a petition gathers enough signatures, the state legislature must either put the proposal on the ballot for voters or adopt it as law. In 2018, the Republican-led legislature chose to adopt the ESTA, along with a minimum wage increase, only to significantly amend and weaken both laws during the "lame duck" session later that year. This tactic, known as "adopt-and-amend," stripped the sick leave act of its most robust protections, such as its application to small businesses and the higher rate of leave accrual.
Following years of litigation, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in July 2024, declaring the "adopt-and-amend" strategy unconstitutional. The court ordered that the original versions of the Earned Sick Time Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act be reinstated. After a brief implementation window, the full version of the ESTA went into effect in early 2025. This restored version requires employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, allows employees to carry over unused time, and applies to nearly all employers in the state, including those in the transportation sector.
The reinstatement of these original provisions prompted immediate pushback from the airline industry. Carriers argued that the logistics of tracking accruals for pilots and flight attendants who may start their day in Detroit, fly to Chicago, and end their shift in Minneapolis create an undue administrative burden that interferes with the uniform federal standards established by the ADA and RLA.
Federal Preemption and the Airline Deregulation Act
The core of the industry’s lawsuit rests on the principle of federal preemption. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was designed to promote competition by preventing states from enacting laws "related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier." The plaintiffs argue that Michigan’s sick leave law effectively dictates how airlines must manage their personnel, which in turn influences flight scheduling (routes) and the availability of staff (services).
In her motion to dismiss, Susan Corbin countered this by citing established judicial precedents which hold that generally applicable state labor laws—those that do not specifically target the airline industry—are typically not preempted by the ADA. The state argues that the ESTA is a "minimum labor standard" that affects the cost of doing business but does not compel an airline to change its flight paths or pricing structures. Corbin’s filing emphasizes that the airlines have provided "merely speculative" claims regarding how the law would force flight cancellations or disruptions, noting that many airlines already navigate complex leave policies through collective bargaining agreements.
Furthermore, the state asserts that the Railway Labor Act, which governs labor relations in the airline and railroad industries, does not grant employers a "blanket exemption" from state health and safety laws. While the RLA emphasizes the resolution of disputes through arbitration and collective bargaining, Corbin argues that it does not prevent a state from setting a baseline of "non-negotiable" rights for workers.
Supporting Data and Economic Context
The implications of this case extend to thousands of employees in Michigan. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) serves as a primary hub for Delta Air Lines and a major operation center for several other carriers. According to data from the Michigan Bureau of Labor Market Information and Strategic Initiatives, the "Air Transportation" subsector in Michigan employs approximately 12,000 to 15,000 people, including ground crew, maintenance, and flight personnel.
The state’s defense points to the broader economic benefits of paid sick leave, citing public health data that suggests guaranteed leave reduces the spread of illness in the workplace—a factor particularly relevant in the confined environment of an aircraft. A 2023 study by the Economic Policy Institute noted that states with mandatory paid sick leave saw a measurable decrease in "presenteeism" (employees working while sick), which can lead to higher long-term productivity and lower healthcare costs for the state.
Conversely, the airline industry highlights the high cost of compliance. Industry analysts estimate that the administrative overhead for tracking state-specific leave for mobile workforces can cost large carriers millions of dollars annually in software updates and compliance monitoring. In their complaint, the industry groups noted that if every state followed Michigan’s lead with slightly different accrual rates and usage caps, the resulting "compliance thicket" would compromise the national uniformity intended by federal aviation law.
Chronology of the Legal Dispute
The timeline of the current litigation reflects the rapid escalation of the conflict following the Michigan Supreme Court’s intervention:
- July 31, 2024: The Michigan Supreme Court rules in Mothering Justice v. Nessel, striking down the 2018 amendments and restoring the original Earned Sick Time Act.
- February 21, 2025: The Earned Sick Time Act officially takes effect across Michigan, requiring employers to begin tracking accruals under the restored 1-to-30-hour ratio.
- April 2026: A coalition of airline trade groups files a federal lawsuit against Susan Corbin and the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, seeking an injunction to prevent the law’s enforcement against air carriers.
- May – June 2026: Both parties engage in preliminary discovery, with the state requesting specific evidence of operational "interference" caused by the law.
- July 20, 2026: Susan Corbin files a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that their arguments lack a factual basis.
Official Responses and Industry Reaction
While Susan Corbin has remained focused on the legal merits of the state’s position, representatives for the airline industry have voiced significant concern over the potential for a "regulatory contagion." A spokesperson for the industry group stated, "Airlines operate a national and international network that relies on consistency. When states attempt to regulate the working conditions of employees who are constantly in motion, it creates an operational quagmire that the Airline Deregulation Act was specifically designed to prevent."
Labor advocates in Michigan, however, have praised Corbin’s defense of the law. "The Earned Sick Time Act was a mandate from the people of Michigan," said a representative for a local labor union. "Airline employees are not second-class citizens; they deserve the same right to stay home when they are ill without fear of losing their paycheck or their job. The state is right to stand its ground against corporate attempts to bypass our laws."
Analysis of Implications and Future Outlook
The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how state labor laws interact with federal transportation statutes. If the court sides with the state and dismisses the suit, it could embolden other states to apply their own labor and benefit mandates to airline employees, potentially leading to a more fragmented regulatory environment for the industry. This would likely prompt an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which has recently shown an interest in clarifying the boundaries of federal preemption.
If the airlines prevail, it would reinforce the "field preemption" of the ADA, suggesting that the federal interest in a uniform aviation system outweighs a state’s interest in regulating the employment conditions of workers within that system. This would create a "carve-out" where airline employees remain subject only to federal standards or those negotiated in collective bargaining, regardless of the protections offered to other workers in their home states.
The case also highlights the shifting landscape of "home rule" and state sovereignty in the face of globalized industries. As Michigan continues to implement the restored ESTA, the eyes of the legal and transportation communities remain fixed on the Western District of Michigan. The court’s decision on Corbin’s motion to dismiss will be the first major indicator of whether the state’s boldest labor protection in decades can survive the scrutiny of federal aviation law.
For now, Michigan’s Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity remains steadfast. The state maintains that the airline industry has not met the high burden of proof required to show that a standard health-related leave policy constitutes an illegal interference with the "routes and services" of a flight. As the litigation proceeds, the factual "basis" that Corbin claims is missing will be the primary battleground for the future of workers’ rights in the skies over Michigan.
