Declining to hear an appeal by airlines: “Obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday.” (Reuters, Nov. 20; CBC). We’ve covered the issue for years, including, e.g., here, here, here (U.S.), here, and here. More thoughts: Scott Greenfield, Ann Althouse.
The flight attendant sought a whopping $405K for the alleged assault. This demand seemed unreasonable based on the description of the injuries, even if they occurred as alleged (“Jury says no assault, agrees with Osteen’s wife”, MSNBC, Aug. 14, earlier).
We express no opinion as to exactly how badly Victoria Osteen, wife of a celebrated evangelical minister, may have behaved on that Continental Airlines flight in 2005; “The Federal Aviation Administration fined [her] $3,000 for interfering with a crew member.” Readers keep writing in, however, to call our attention to the financial demands that flight attendant Sharon Brown is making in her lawsuit, which just went to trial. It seems Brown wants compensation not only for such things as hemorrhoids and damage to her religious faith but also, by way of punishment, “10 percent of Victoria Osteen’s net worth”. Wouldn’t we all! (”Joel Osteen’s Wife on Trial in Flight Attendant Assault”, AP/FoxNews.com, Aug. 7).
Tehmina Haque’s four-year-old son apparently did not suffer any allergic reaction, but mom got really stressed about the possibility he would so she’s suing American Airlines anyway. The airline says it never promises peanut-free flights, if only because it cannot keep other passengers from bringing their own peanut snacks on board. (Zachary R. Dowdy, “LI woman sues over in-flight peanuts”, Newsday, Jun. 2).
“A New York lawyer is suing Delta Air Lines for $1 million, saying his family vacation turned into a nightmare after they were stranded in an airport for days and treated disdainfully by airline employees. Richard Roth, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and his mother, said he planned the Christmas 2007 trip to Buenos Aires to celebrate his mother’s 80th birthday.” (Reuters/MSNBC, AP/Atlanta Journal Constitution). Best quote, arguably, from Roth: “I tried so hard not to sue them.” (New York Post). Scott Greenfield is not entirely admiring (or maybe he is, it’s hard to tell).
P.S. Okay, you win, then: Greenfield was being entirely admiring of the action, million-dollar-demand and all.
Eric Turkewitz suspects that initial news reports are not going to turn out to convey the whole story about this curious complaint filed by Gokhan Mutlu. (May 12 and update May 15; Yahoo/Reuters).
When American Airlines instituted a $2 per bag charge for skycap service at Boston’s Logan Airport, the workers’ tip income dropped, some travelers seeing the change as a reason to stop tipping. A lawyer representing the workers sued American and a month ago a federal jury awarded them more than $325,000. In addition, the Massachusetts legislature recently enacted a law providing that businesses can be hit with triple damages in wage/hour disputes. Now American Airlines has decreed a complete ban on tipping at check-in at Logan, while also ordering its contractor to raise the skycaps’ wages from the former nominal $5.15 an hour to $12-$15, well above the minimum wage but well below what they had been getting in tips. The workers’ lawyer is of course charging retaliation and has asked a judge to forbid the change. (AP/Boston Herald, Boston Globe; Boston Herald editorial).
The purported class action on behalf of unharmed (and even un-inconvenienced) customers is looked on askance at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog (”It is just far beyond silly.”) and by many readers at Consumerist (via P&S)(earlier).
Because it’s not as if you actually have to have been, like, harmed or anything to get a class action going (AP/USA Today, Apr. 16). Birmingham, Ala. lawyer Lew Garrison is representing four passengers on “claims that include breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligent and reckless operation of an aircraft”.
On Jan. 17 of last year and again on Jan. 11 of this year we ran posts discussing Cerqueira v. American Airlines, a lawsuit arising from the airline’s refusal to transport a passenger following erroneous fears that he was a security risk. John Cerqueira, the plaintiff in the case, has sent and asked us to publish a response, which follows:
My name is John Cerqueira and I am the plaintiff in Cerqueira v. American Airlines. I appreciate the opportunity to share my comments. Please allow me to (1) share the text of §44902 with this blog which was used by the appeal judges to overthrow the jury verdict; (2) tell my story about the original incident and 2007 trial; (3) comment on the results of the 2008 appeal.
Is Southwest Airline discriminating against the Pretty Girls again?
“I think they were just discriminating against because we were young decent-looking girls. I mean, nobody else on the plane looked like us except us,” she said. “[The flight attendants] were like older ladies. We were younger. Who knows, they could have been just jealous of us because we were younger.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
(Tampabays.com, Feb. 27)
H/T Wizbang (with video)
Updates:
“Robert Loblaw” at the blog Decision of the Day, has this post on the case of Cerqueira v. American Airlines. In sum, after being booted off the plane for some suspicious behavior, plaintiff John Cerqueiia, thought he would sue. After winning an award $130,000 in compensatory damages and $270,000 in punitive damages the case was appealed. The First Circuit reversed:
On appeal, the First Circuit vacates the award and grants judgment for the defendants. In an opinion that is heavy on the factual details of the incident - and particularly the facts as they appeared at the time to the key decision makers - the First concludes that the jury instructions were incorrect. Among other things, the district court refused to provide instructions about the security provisions of Federal Aviation Act that governed the captain’s actions. In light of the flawed instructions, the Court concludes that the verdict cannot stand.
Moreover, the Court concludes that there is no evidence to sustain the jury’s conclusion that the plaintiff was discriminated against because he appeared to be middle eastern. In particular, neither of the two key decision makers - the captain and a manager in American’s Dallas headquarters - even saw the plaintiff until trial, and there is no other evidence to suggest that their decision was based on assumptions about the plaintiff’s race. Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Irrespective of the appellate decision, the initial jury verdict of $400,000 says a lot about how justice seems proportionality unfair and unmeasured given the facts of this case.
(Earlier at Overlawyered: Jan. 17.) Update Mar. 2: Cerqueira responds.
A federal judge has declined to dismiss the controversial lawsuit. “The imams have argued that they were removed because of religious and ethnic bias. The airline says they were ejected solely because of security concerns raised by passengers and crew members.” In August, the imams dropped the most widely criticized portion of the suit, which had named as defendants fellow passengers who had expressed fears for the flight’s security. (Dan Browning, “Flying imams score points in suit vs. US Airways”, Arizona Republic/Minneapolis Star Tribune, Nov. 21; Audrey Hudson, “Judge grants imams day in court”, Washington Times, Nov. 22). See Dec. 6, 2006, Mar. 15, 2007, etc.
More from Ann Althouse (Nov. 21): “Yes, let’s get to the factfinding. No need to throw this out on a motion to dismiss when the plaintiff’s version of the facts must be taken as true.”
The families of 9/11 victims who refused the Feinberg fund results and demanded more through lawsuits piously reported repeatedly that it wasn’t about the money, that they just wanted to publicize the truth in their lawsuits against fellow victims such as the airlines and airports and multiple other deep pockets. Now that several cases have settled—and the plaintiffs have agreed to confidentiality clauses—Shaun Mullen and Ed Morrissey suggest that it was about the money after all.
Point of Law Volokh