protected employees is more likely a result of a contract-like mentality in Congress -- the airlines got the deregulation they wanted in exchange for a responsibility to protect current workers. But there is no reason to assume that employment with a new company created as a result of deregulation is less favored than employment with an existing carrier. Deregulation was achieved because Congress and public opinion believed that a deregulated environment, with added competition, the loss of some existing companies, and the addition of new companies, would be superior to the regulated environment. This court cannot find that the companies created by deregulation would be assumed inferior.
The first time that Piedmont hired non-protected candidates for vacancies after Crocker's application was complete was after Crocker had already secured a position in his occupational specialty. Because occupational specialty is a broad term defined as the class, craft, or field of endeavor in which an individual was employed at the time of separation, the plaintiff cannot make a credible argument that his employment as a chief pilot is not in the same occupational specialty as his position as a pilot at Air New England. Therefore, this plaintiff has no claim against defendant, because defendant did not hire non-protected employees after plaintiff had completed his application and before plaintiff secured another job in his occupational specialty.
Hence, for the reasons set forth above, the Court this date shall enter the accompanying Order, deeming the defendant's motion to strike a motion for summary judgment, and granting summary judgment for the defendant.
DATE: November 14, 1989
ORDER - November 15, 1989, Filed
Upon consideration of plaintiff's motion to strike portions of plaintiff's claim for relief, the opposition and reply memoranda thereto, the parties' Rule 108(h) statements, and the parties' oral arguments, and for the reasons set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion of this date, it is hereby
ORDERED, that defendant's motion to strike be deemed a motion for summary judgment and that it is granted, and it is further
ORDERED, that summary judgment is hereby entered for defendant, and plaintiff shall take nothing on his complaint. This action now stands DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATE: November 14, 1989