In the case of Air Line Pilots Association v. Robert A. Miller, et al., 1997, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a union could be held liable for breaching its duty of fair representation to some members by favoring others in collective bargaining negotiations. The dispute arose when United Airlines and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) agreed on an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). Under this plan, pilots who were active as of July 12, 1985 would receive more benefits than those hired after that date or those who had retired before it took effect. This led to a group of pilots suing ALPA claiming they breached their duty by unfairly representing them during negotiations. The court ruled in favor of ALPA stating that unions have broad discretion in matters related to collective bargaining including decisions about seniority provisions which often involve compromises between different groups within a union's membership base. Therefore, unless there is substantial evidence showing discrimination against certain members or bad faith conduct from the union’s side during negotiation process; such claims cannot hold ground.

In the dissenting opinion for AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION v. ROBERT A. MILLER, et al., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). She argued that it was not Congress' intent to allow a single employee or small group of employees to challenge an entire collective bargaining agreement under RLA provisions. Instead, she believed such challenges should be limited to disputes over individual rights within an existing contract rather than its overall validity. Furthermore, she contended that allowing such broad challenges could undermine labor stability by encouraging constant litigation and disruption in industries covered by the RLA.