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).
Posts Tagged ‘airlines’
Careful what you sue for: “Airline bans tips for skycaps at Logan”
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).
Southwest Airlines missed-inspection suit, cont’d
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).
“Passengers sue Southwest Airlines over missed inspections”
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”.
American Airlines lawsuit: John Cerqueira responds
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.
A New Suspect Class?
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)
January 13 roundup
Updates:
- The Canadian Transportation Agency (as part of its regulation of airline ticket prices) has ruled that obese passengers are entitled to have two airline seats for the price of one, which will no doubt encourage further suits against the American practice. (h/t Rohan) One looks forward to the Canadian lawsuits complaining that an obese passenger wasn’t adjudged obese enough to get a free second seat. [Australian; Toronto Star; Gunter @ National Post; earlier on Overlawyered]
- Also in Canada, Ezra Levant defends his free speech rights against a misnamed Alberta “Human Rights Commission” over his republication of the Danish Muhammed cartoons. [Frum; National Post; Steyn @ Corner; Wise Law Blog; Youtube; related on Overlawyered]
- Alleged car-keying attorney “Grodner is now under investigation by the state’s Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, sources said. Commission officials declined to comment Thursday.” [Chicago Tribune; Jan. 4]
- “Life is short—get a divorce” attorney Corri Fetman parlays her tasteless billboard (May 10; May 8) into tasteless Playboy topless-modeling and advice-column gig. In the words of Alfred E. Neuman, “Blech.” On multiple and independent grounds. Surprisingly, Above the Law avoids the snark of noting that the lead paragraph of Fetman’s law firm web site bio includes a prestigious 23-year-old quote from a college professor’s recommendation for law school. [Above the Law; Chicago Sun-Times; Elefant]
- Wesley Snipes (Jun. 11; Nov. 2006) appears to be going for a Cheek defense in his tax-evasion trial—which is hard to do when you’re a multimillionaire whose well-paid accountants explicitly tell you you’re violating the law. (Remember what I said about magical incantations and taxes?) [Tampa Tribune; Quatloos]
- Accountant Mark Maughan loses his search-engines-make-me-look-bad lawsuit (Mar. 2004) against Google, which even got Rule 11 sanctions. (That happened in 2006. Sorry for the delay.) More on Google and privacy: Jan. 16. [Searchenginewatch]
- Bribed Mississippi judges in Paul Minor case (Sep. 8 and much more coverage) report to prison. [AP]
Cerqueira v. American Airlines
“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.
Update: Andrew Speaker’s fellow passengers
Update: flying-imams suit can proceed
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.”