Davis v. Delta Air Lines Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00954
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BRIAN DAVIS, CASE NO. C24-0954-KKE 8 Plaintiff(s), v. ORDER LIFTING STAY AND GRANTING 9 STIPULATED REQUEST TO SET CASE DELTA AIR LINES INC., DEADLINES 10 Defendant(s). 11

12 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Status Report and Motion to 13 Continue Trial Date and Case Deadlines. Dkt. No. 19. 14 In this case, Plaintiff Brian Davis sues Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) on behalf 15 of himself and others similarly situated, alleging Defendant violated the pay transparency 16 provision of the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110. 17 Dkt. No. 1-1. Delta removed this case to this Court on June 28, 2024. Dkt. No. 1. Delta then 18 moved to dismiss the complaint (Dkt. No. 9) and Davis moved to remand to state court (Dkt. No. 19 10). 20 On August 20, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge John H. Chun certified the following 21 question to the Washington Supreme Court: “What must a plaintiff prove to be deemed a ‘job 22 applicant’ within the meaning of RCW 49.58.110(4)? For example, must they prove that they are 23 24 1 a ‘bona fide’ applicant?” Branson v. Wash. Fine Wines & Spirits, No. 2:24-cv-00589-JHC, 2024 2 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148958, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20, 2024). 3 The Washington Supreme Court accepted review, and this Court stayed this case and

4 terminated the pending motions pending the state Supreme Court’s decision on the certified 5 question. Dkt. No. 16. 6 On September 4, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision. Branson v. 7 Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, No. 103394-0, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 442 (Wash. Sept. 4, 2025). 8 The Court concluded: 9 A job applicant need not prove they are a “bona fide” applicant to be deemed a “job applicant.” Rather, in accordance with the plain 10 language of RCW 49.58.110(4), a person must apply to any solicitation intended to recruit job applicants for a specific available 11 position to be considered a “job applicant,” regardless of the person’s subjective intent in applying for the specific position. 12 Id. at *22–23. 13 The parties now jointly request that this Court lift the previously entered stay and set 14 deadlines agreed to by the parties for Delta to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint and 15 for Davis to renew his motion to remand. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the stay of 16 proceedings is lifted. 17 Defendant will file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before November 18 7, 2025. In the event Defendant files a new motion to dismiss, Plaintiff’s response is due on or 19 before November 28, 2025, and Defendant’s reply is due on or before December 19, 2025. 20 Plaintiff will file a new motion to remand on or before November 7, 2025, with Defendant’s 21 response due on or before November 28, 2025, and Plaintiff’s reply due on or before December 22 19, 2025. 23 24 1 The Court acknowledges the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(2), but 2 finds good cause to defer entry of a case schedule pending the Court’s ruling on the forthcoming 3 motions to remand and potential motion to dismiss.

4 Dated this 6th day of October, 2025. 5 A 6 Kymberly K. Evanson 7 United States District Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24