At least one supervisor is documented saying "You cannot refuse" the AIT.

I'll give you dollars to donuts that TSA management will claim that employee misunderstood the new directive or was improperly trained.

You know that TSA will look for an out.

You also know that no one at TSA will be held accountable.

I'd have bet that too. Frankly, it's a smart strategy. But they could have done this with my BOS & SFO cases. Instead, they doubled down all the way.

I'm not at all sure what their response will be. They definitely want to deny me standing if they can, and claiming that the SEA STSO was in fact not carrying out the very policy I had moved to enjoin days earlier, which they claimed I couldn't prove I was going to be affected by, would be one way to attack my standing.

But then they'd have to admit some sort of fault by the screener. Doing that would mean instant Bivens & FTCA liability, which they probably indemnify. I doubt they want to hand me summary judgment on a platter, either.

It'll be interesting to see which way they break on it. They have 180 days to respond.

Homeland Security Inspector General, John Roth, Nov. 3, 2015:

"I am hopeful that the days of TSA sweeping its problems under the rug and simply ignoring the findings and recommendations of the OIG and GAO are coming to an end."

-----------

2007 Nadine Pellegrino - Pellegrino is a traveler. TSA Supervisor @ PHL files complaint with police, passenger is arrested, case is dismissed because TSA did not preserve evidence.

2015 Roger Vanderklok - Vanderklok is a traveler. TSA Supervisor @ PHL file complaint with police, passenger is arrested, case is dimissed after ONLY ONE witness (the TSA superviosr who filed the original complaint).

2010 Stacy Armato Armato is traver. Armato wanted alternative screening for medically exempt liquids. Armato presented TSA policy on medical liquids. Armato was held in a class enclosure and other held on the checkpoint for nearly an hour. Government had 8 attorneys, and settled for $75,000.

2008, came to light in 2012 - TSA covers up misconduct of Supervisor. Supervisor violates policy because TSA Manager violated the law. Manager attempted to bring a firearm in the secure area of a Checkpoint.
In the Supervisor own words he violated policy "I felt that this situation involving upper-management had the potential to give TSA Phoenix yet another public relations black eye. In an effort to avoid bad publicity for TSA, the TSA Manager, me and the checkpoint I told the X-ray operator to release the bag from the X-ray machine."
The AFSD send an email to the supervisor ""Thank you for the quick turnaround,..."

If you are trying to make a point on the lack of accountability that I claim then tell me how these TSA employees were held accountable for their actions? Was anyone fired, fined, given days off or what? And for the passengers other than the $75,000 in the Armato case did anyone get compensation for their lawyers, time lost, interruption of their travel?

I maintain that TSA does not hold employees accountable.

According to the article covering the Vanderklok incident, the supervisor - who gave testimony that contradicted his written statement and the video evidence - was still employed with TSA as of Feb 2015. So I dont think that incident represents accountability.

As to the others, I am unaware of any evidence of accountability.

I've heard a rumor that TSM David Smith, the star of my SFO video, stopped working for TSA around the time that my video was on national TV. I don't have confirmation.

However, seeing as I'm naming him the lead defendant in my upcoming suit, I expect I'll find out what happened to him and why.

If he left TSA does he still have immunity?

IANAL, but my understanding is that qualified immunity covers a government actor for any legal actions they take on the government's behalf while employed by the government. So it doesn't matter whether he's still at TSA or is flipping burgers or has won Powerball and bought an island, what matters is whether he was employed by TSA at the time of the incident in question.

What also matters, of course, is whether his actions were legal, and whether they were undertaken on behalf of, or at the behest of, TSA.

Qualified immunity protects cops from things like being sued for assault when they use force to apprehend a suspect (provided they followed all applicable laws and departmental policies regarding the use of force), or from being charged with unlawful detention when they detain someone for questioning (provided they have probable cause and follow all applicable laws and departmental policies). TSA has always claimed qualified immunity for TSOs who do things during an administrative search that would be assault, theft, or illegal search and seizure under any other circumstances.

Thing is, if the TSOs act in good faith, follow TSA policy, obey the instructions of their superiors, and stay within all of the applicable rules they've been given, qualified immunity will still protect them from being held personally accountable, should a TSA policy be determined later to be illegal or un-Constitutional.

Qualified immunity does not protect them if they violate the rules set down by their employer, like the guy in DEN who was intentionally alarming the AIT so he could grope the genitalia of men he considered hot. TSA policy forbids that, but he did it anyway, so qualified immunity won't protect him from either criminal prosecution or civil suits by his victims.

Again, I Am Not A Lawyer; this is just my basic understanding of qualified immunity, from an ordinary person's perspective.

His leaving or not leaving is irrelevant. The question is only whether he had immunity, or liability, at the time of the actions in question. What he's doing now is irrelevant.

Also, mind that there are two different kinds of immunity at play here: FTCA / Westfall Act, and Bivens. Different standards for each.

Westfall Act grants absolute individual immunity, if the triggering conditions are met, converting it to FTCA liability instead. Bivens involves qualified immunity, i.e. "violation of clearly established law" at the time of the challenged acts.

Bivens has punitive damages, FTCA doesn't. Bivens is against the individual (though they're usually indemnified), FTCA is against the US Treasury. Etc. Lots of differences. Circuit split over whether TSA screeners are within the "law enforcement exemption" that allows you to sue cops for breaking your leg, but doesn't let you sue a national park tour guide for doing so. (At least, not if it was part of their job somehow…)

All you said was correct, AFAICT. You only mentioned Bivens liability, though. You neglected FTCA.

It's hard to get a Bivens claim upheld in any new area of law, and the courts are reticent to expand it. We'll see how it goes. Hopefully I should at least be able to get declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, even if I don't get damages against the individuals involved.

Even if someone holds up my arms, it is going to leave me in pain for some number of minutes or hours. I also don't strap hang on a subway any more, because that hurts.

Plus TSA have to go into the scanner.My leg would be off my feet then. I really would be hanging or on the the floor.