Argument
I.
Saving clause was kept intentionally in order for equity to prevail where there is no remedy
Section 1305(a)(1) of the ADA provides that “No State or political subdivision thereof and no interstate agency or other political agency of two or more States shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to the rates, routes, or service of any air carrier....”
Before the enactment of the ADA in 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board had complete economic regulatory authority over interstate air transportation pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. The above act did not specifically preempt state regulation, rather it included a ‘savings clause’ which provided…show more content… Congress later in 1978 came to the conclusion that efficiency, low prices, variety, and quality would be enhanced if it relied on a competitive market other than the universal federal regulation. This was to prevent states from undoing federal deregulation by imputing a regulation of their own. The aim was for airlines to have sovereignty and control over all their decisions without the interference of the State. Congress enacted ADA Act of 1978, section 1305(a)(1) which once again preempted state laws "relating to the rates, routes, or service of any air carrier....". However, it retained the savings clause in this Act. Remarkably, the saving clause has always been kept in place even with all the numerous amendments for the sole reason of providing a remedy, where the law does not bring about equity. Since its inception in the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, the savings clause has never been removed which goes to stress the importance of finding a suitable remedy to ensure equity is achieved. The pre-emption clause only came…show more content… Roberts as a single parent because even she was replaced, she was given a warning and the second time was dismissed. Her performance was satisfactory and did not significantly or adversely affect Brianair’s ability to operate, giving Brianair no grounds to fire her. Because Brianair knew all this, it moved the case to federal law, fully aware that her claim is based entirely on Humber State law. Ms. Roberts is seeking damages of $100,000 as she should and is in need of an injunction requiring Brianair to provide what is known as “reasonable accommodation” of her circumstances as a single