Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc.
Airline employees who objected to COVID-19 vaccination, masking, and testing protocols sued Atlas Air and a staffing contractor on Title VII, FDCA, constitutional, and Florida tort theories. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the third amended complaint — no personal jurisdiction over the Texas-based staffing company, and failure to state a claim on the merits — holding among other things that internal circulation of employees' vaccination status for scheduling purposes does not satisfy Florida's publicity element for invasion of privacy, and that COVID-era workplace protocols are not 'outrageous' conduct under Florida IIED law. The court separately referred plaintiffs' counsel to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct for filing two briefs riddled with AI-hallucinated citations.
Key facts
- Airline employees objected to COVID-19 vaccination, masking, and testing protocols and sued Atlas Air and a Texas-based staffing contractor under Title VII, FDCA, constitutional, and Florida tort theories.
- The trial court dismissed the third amended complaint; plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
For Florida employment and privacy practitioners, the opinion supplies a clean statement that intra-company dissemination of employee medical information (here, vaccination status) for scheduling and compliance purposes… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.