Cerqueira v. American Airlines, 07-1824 (1^st Cir., Jan. 10, 2008)

In a decision that delves into the security decisions that airline crews face every day, the First Circuit has vacated a jury verdict for a plaintiff who alleged that he was tossed off of an American Airlines flight because passengers and crew thought he was middle eastern.

Plaintiff John Cerqueira boarded a Florida-bound American Airlines plane at Logan Airport. He had agitated for an exit row, and he was seated alongside a pair of jokers who made several odd comments to the captain, crew, and fellow passengers prior to take-off. Others on the plane assumed the three men were traveling together and were put off by their behavior. The plaintiff also raised suspicion by spending an inordinately long time in the plane’s bathroom. Then rumors began to fly that a box cutter had been found during the TSA’s security screening that morning.

With on-board tensions escalating, the captain decided to evacuate the plane and have it searched by bomb-sniffing dogs. Although nothing was found, the three men were not allowed to reboard the plane, and American Airlines also refused to rebook them. So instead of traveling home to Fort Lauderdale that day, the plaintiff had to spend an extra day with his parents in Fall River, Massachusetts. For that indignity, a jury awarded him $130,000 in compensatory damages and $270,000 in punitive damages.

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.

Update:  Thanks to the more thorough coverage in Decisionism and Appellate Law & Practice, I now know that the plaintiff is a Stanford graduate of Portuguese descent.  These background facts do not appear in the First Circuit’s decision.  I’m embarassed to admit that these facts impact my view of the case even though I know that they are totally irrelevant under the law.  Still, it’s interesting that the First Circuit decided to leave this information out of the opinion.

Posted Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:16:48 and filed under Jury Verdicts, Decision of the Day. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.