Marsh v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

952 F. Supp. 1458 (1997)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Marsh v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Colorado
952 F. Supp. 1458 (1997)


Michael Marsh (plaintiff) worked for Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) (defendant) for 26 years. Marsh was a baggage handler at the time of his termination. Marsh was fired after the Denver Post published a letter Marsh submitted criticizing Delta. Marsh’s letter complained that Delta was replacing full-time employees who had been laid off with contract employees. Marsh alleged that Delta was infected with industrial diseases such as cost-cutting, and he lamented that customer service would suffer due to what he referred to as cheap contract helpers. Marsh called Delta arrogant and ignorant and stated the company had betrayed the loyalty of its 60,000 employees. Even though Delta had an internal grievance process whereby employees could call a toll-free number and report complaints without fear of reprisal, Marsh did not attempt to communicate with Delta using this procedure. After the letter was published, Marsh was suspended without pay and was later asked to resign, which he refused to do. Marsh then was terminated for behavior unacceptable for a Delta employee. Marsh appealed his termination to Delta management, but the appeal was denied. Marsh sued Delta, alleging wrongful discharge under Colorado’s wrongful-discharge statute, among other claims. Colorado law prohibited an employer from firing an employee based on the employee’s lawful activity outside of work hours and while off the employer’s property. However, there were three affirmative defenses or exceptions, which permitted termination for an employee’s lawful activity while off duty if (1) the employee’s activity related to a genuine occupational requirement or (2) related to the duties of a specific employee or a specific set of employees, or (3) termination was needed to prevent an actual or apparent conflict of interest with duties to the employer. Delta argued that Marsh’s termination was justified under each exception. Regarding a genuine occupational requirement, Delta argued that there was an implied duty of loyalty that Marsh owed Delta, which he had breached by submitting a letter for publication to the Denver Post that criticized Delta. Delta cited labor-law cases that established that disloyalty provided sufficient cause for termination. Marsh moved for partial summary judgment, and Delta filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Daniel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership