FAA Safety Inspector Sues United For $12.75 Million — Claims He Was Banned For Life After Reporting Torn Seat Pocket

An off-duty FAA safety inspector, who had been investigating United’s Boeing 737 MAX fleet, was flying San Francisco – Lihue on May 12, 2022. He says that he noticed his seat had a torn seatback pocket, which he says “impaired” securing and accessing the safety briefing card, which is a violation of FAA rules. He took a photo of the torn pocket and a second photo of a passenger standing in the aisle during pushback.

The crew thought he was photographing them and being combative (and angling to move to a better seat for free). The passenger says that the captain demanded he show the photos he’d taken – or the aircraft would return to the gate. He says he complied, but the aircraft returned anyway and he was removed from the aircraft. United then allegedly:

• Imposed a lifetime travel ban
  
• Demanded $3,153 in restitution for the return to the gate.
  
• Filed a complaint with the FAA, which then led to a civil penalty enforcement action against him.

Since he was under investigation, he was removed from safety oversight duties involving United. He alleges this was United’s objective. And I wouldn’t blame them for wanting this – he strikes me as officious, focused more on rule compliance than safety.

He says that the enforcement case against him was dropped, that United’s witnesses were deemed unreliable, and warned that punishing safety reporting would have a chilling effect – but that United refused to lift his ban. That’s when he sued for $12.75 million.

There’s really two separate things going on here:

• Removal from the aircraft and ban
  
• Report of his conduct to the FAA

The plaintiff crafts a strong retaliation narrative and offers motive. And if United allegedly portrayed him to the FAA as disruptive, dishonest, greedy, or threatening (factual assertions) then there’s a claim for defamation and reputational harm especially with his role as a safety inspector. However, United has very strong procedural defenses.

• Airlines have tremendous discretion in refusing to transport passengers. 49 USC § 44902 provides broad latitude, within certain bounds laid out by the FAA, for the captain of an aircraft to refuse transportation to a passenger if they feel that passenger might be “inimical to safety.”

  A pilot’s decision cannot be arbitrary or capricious – but that’s not the same as saying it has to be reasonable. It’s generally presumed that the actions of the pilot are reasonable, and judged based on facts the pilot was aware of at the time and the time constraints they’re under.

  • If they’re given only one side of the story, and it’s incomplete
    
  • And they make a decision based on that information
    
  • And they’re in a rush to get the plane out
    
  • That’s probably going to be fine under the law

  
  Given the removal follows a captain’s judgment, it’s going to be tough to prevail on claims related to be removed from the aircraft. And state law liability will be pre-empted by the Airline Deregulation Act as the removal was clearly “related to a…service” of an air carrier.

• United will argue that their communication to the FAA is protected activity, and that there’s a high burden on the plaintiff for that. Statements made in an official proceeding are tough to make defamation claims over. Furthermore, the airline will argue that the FAA’s decision to investigate and reassign duties is their own government decision, not something United had any ability to ’cause’.

I’ve only ever seen one person plausibly claim they were banned by a U.S. airline for their views and commentary, but it turns out they were banned for abusive behavior towards the airline’s employees. Aeroflot, though, has been known to revoke elite status from journalists and passengers who criticize the airline.

Here, it seems like he was banned for being disruptive – maybe unfairly! And maybe his animus meant he shouldn’t be investigating the airline. There don’t appear to be any allegations that FAA safety oversight was any less aggressive. Indeed, the agency subsequently undertook special safety monitoring of the airline (Certificate Holder Evaluation Program) – which they concluded.

(HT: Paddle Your Own Kanoo)