NEW YORK (CNN) -- Five passengers who were removed from or prevented from boarding flights last year after the September 11 terror attacks filed suit Tuesday against four major U.S. airlines, accusing them of racial profiling and discrimination.

The separate suits were filed against Continental, American, United and Northwest airlines in federal courts, respectively, in Newark, Baltimore, Los Angeles and San Francisco.


http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/04/ai...ion/index.html

Unfortunately, these lawsuits do not stand a chance. Under current FARs, the captain of an aircraft is entitled to use his complete discretion to remove from the aircraft any passenger he believes to be a risk to the security of the aircraft. This does not have a disqualification based on passenger's ethnicity.

It will be interesting to see how the courts deal with this situation.

The Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution has been interrpreted to impose a very strict standard for using race or national origin for making governmental decisions. Stay tuned.

I know someone who works for the government and he has told me countless stories about how most of his agency's decisions are race-based. Actually, they even have official quotas to give business contracts to certain races. They sometimes pay employees and contractors for doing no work at all, if the race is right. Our tax dollars at work...

I have no idea what the law says about these suits, but based on what I've read I am rooting for the pax to win these cases

I disagree here. Take a look at the actual complaint: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/acl...nt60402cmp.pdf

I'm not a lawyer but I do realize that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will definitely take precedence over some stupid FAA rule. Its really up to the courts to decide if the pilot's discretion was justified. I think the ACLU is involved to see if the FAA rule for pilots discretion is in violation of federal civil rights or not.



[This message has been edited by sgopal2 (edited 06-08-2002).]

That's absolutely correct. These lawsuits have a very sound basis in law. Purveyors of "travel stuff" involved in interstate commerce have a very high burden to meet and cannot racially discriminate. There is no need for state action in these kinds of cases. The post suggesting this will be a tough case is incorrect with respect to the law - however, it may be tough to get courts and juries to follow the law given the unfortunate high degreee of tolerance for discrimination against Arab Americans in the wake of 9/11.

As legal authority for my statement,

See: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (379 US 241) (US Supreme Court, 1964)

Rule of law:

"The power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the states of origin and destination, which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce."

Pertinent facts:

"Title 11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, � 201 (a), prohibits discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin in any place of public accommodation which, as further defined in the Act, includes a motel having more than five rooms for rent. Only those motels affecting commerce were subject to injunctive action pursuant to the Act.

The Heart of Atlanta Motel (P), with more than 216 rooms, was situated within ready access to interstate and state highways. The Motel (P) solicited patronage through various national advertising media and maintained over 50 billboards and highway signs within the state. It accepted convention trade from outside Georgia. Seventy-five percent of its registered guests were from out of state.

Prior to the Act's enactment, the Motel (P) had followed a practice of refusing to rent to Negroes.The Motel (P) brought a declaratory judgment action against the United States (D) to have it determined that the Motel (P) was not within the provisions of Title 11 and could continue to refuse service to Negroes.

A three-judge court sustained the validity of the Act and issued a permanent injunction against the Motel (P), which appealed. The United States Supreme Court reversed."

The case of Dasrath v Continental is especially weak because Dasrath was a NON REVENUE passenger travelling on an airline employee dependant pass. As a result, there was no contract of carriage or monetary consideration in place between the two parties.

Sorry, but when a NONREV sues his own airline because they didn't let him on the flight, that is NOT a case where compensation is due.

Sorry--it certainly is actionable when the denial was RACIALLY motivated. As thesilb stated, an airline's silly rules and FAA regs take a back seat to federal statute and Supreme Court case law.

Open question to all: I am told pilots have unfettered authority (judge, jury, etc.) as captain of their ship. Is this true, and if so, does this authority begin when the aircraft is parked at the gate?



[This message has been edited by Babu (edited 06-09-2002).]

Although I don't specifically know of a nonrev case ever being litigated, that is probably not a big factor here because this is not a breach of contract case. There is probably no need to establish privity between the parties. The Civil Rights Act / racial discrimination statute will almost certainly extend to even a nonrev.

Imagine a hotel advertising in the New York Times as a promotion: "Revive the New York Economy! 1000 Free Rooms to the First 1000 to Show Up! No Negroes!"

That would be an outrageous example of a similar situation. Actionable under the Civil Rights Act? I certainly think so.

And, the more I think about it, there probably is privity here inasmuch as the person receiving the family nonrev ticket is a third party beneficiary of the employment benefit being extended to the employee, and thus, has standing to sue.

But again, that is simply not relevant here. This case can proceed on an intentional discrimination theory and it doesn't matter one bit if the passenger was rev or nonrev. That is irrelevant where the airline engaged in interstate commerce denied boarding based on a protected trait such as race. The ket element of proof here will be: did race motivate this decision to disallow boarding? If the plaintiff can prove that, and, the jury follows the law, the plainitff should win this case.

As a second cause of action, I think there is also a good case for the tort of intention infliction of emotional distress, or even negligent infloction of emotional distress (in the latter, the plaintiff would need to prove actual emotional damages with accompanying physical manifestations, whereas in the former, since it is an intentional tort damages are assumed).

Since common carriers have a special duty, an extra high duty, to their passengers, way more than the duty owed by a normal business enterprise, this could be a very favorable cause of action here as well.

By all of this I simply mean to say, Continental better watch it when they deny boarding based on race (if that's what they allowed to happen here). They ought to have their pilots, who make these decisions and thus subject the corporation to vicarious liability, take some sort of mini legal as well as ethical/racial sensitivity training. These things can cost the company tons of damages.

B747-437B,

It makes not one bit of difference wheher or not Mr. Dasrath was a NONREV. Whether or not you are a nonrev, you are entitled to the same basic rights as anyone else. If the complaint is true, neither the Captain nor CO had any right to deplane a passenger because another passenger was uncomfortable with their appearance. The correct thing to
do would have offered the woman the choice of taking a later flight if that were to make her uncomfortable.

Still don't think nonrevs have rights? A few years back, a blind woman sued HP. The reason was because she was asked to move from her FIRST class seat to coach because another F class passenger was offended by her seeing eye dog. The blind woman sued HP and won. Guess what, not only was she a NONREV, but in fact a buddy pass rider!!!

America West wasn't sued by the blind passenger, but fined by the DOT.
http://news.airwise.com/stories/99/09/938606087.html