An employment law firm tried to buy airport billboard space to advertise workplace harassment representation. Syracuse airport took the money, signed the contract, and then refused to run the ad anyway.
Now a federal judge has granted the firm a preliminary injunction, calling the airport authority’s rationale “nonsense.”
Megan Thomas Law, PLLC contacted the airport authority in June about buying the space. They contracted for six months starting August 1, 2025. The airport authority says most of the ad copy was fine, including listing legal services (including sexual harassment), the tagline “No Fear, No Shame, Just Justice,” and a QR code linking to the firm’s website.
However, they objected to one line:
“When HR called it harmless flirting … We call it EXHIBIT A.”
The airport’s written ad policy barred ads deemed “inappropriate, immoral, offensive, or objectionable,” as well as “political” or “religious” messages. The airport authority said that the “harmless flirting / Exhibit A” line was “accusatory and inaccurate,” and could be disruptive. And they tried to frame it as a “airport operations” issue: that the ad could interfere with the “efficient operation of the terminal,” create an “atmosphere” where passengers and tenants “do not feel welcome,” and expose adults and children to “highly charged topics,” undermining the “principal commercial purposes of airports” (fast, convenient, pleasant processing of travelers).
The firm sued on August 15, 2025, alleging breach of contract plus a violation of the First Amendment.
So on September 12, 2025, the airport authority adopted a new advertising policy with fourteen categories of prohibited content, including ads that “disparage” and ads that are “false, misleading, or deceptive.”
Four days later, on September 16, the authority re-rejected the same ad under the new policy, using that for a motion to dismiss:
- Disparagement: the line “reasonably disparages” an individual, group, entity, business/profession, etc.
- Falsity/misleading: the line supposedly “references/implies” an “incorrect” or “specious” legal standard.
According to the lawyer who wanted to advertise, this is a government-owned airport selling ad space, and it cannot pick and choose messages based on viewpoint.
The airport authority believes that advertising at the airport is a nonpublic forum. And it’s not banning harassment-related advertising generally, just an “accusatory” tagline it believes is disparaging, misleading and potentially disruptive.
On January 15, 2026, a judge refused to dismiss the case and explained:
- Even assuming a nonpublic forum, the government’s restriction must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral.
- The airport authority says the ad falsely creates an equivalence between “harmless flirting” and actionable harassment, but the court said “That is nonsense.” At most the line suggests there are situations where behavior brushed off as “harmless flirting” could be actionable. “No reasonable person” would read it as claiming that the phrase automatically creates a legal harassment claim.
- The airport approves ads, such as from Chick-fil-A, that are not literally and objectively true. They have a cow telling people to eat more chicken!
- The disparagement ban isn’t viewpoint neutral and “giving offense” isn’t either.
The judge granted preliminary injunctive relief, but hasn’t specified what’s going to be required.
The firm asked for an order requiring the airport to post the ad immediately under the contract. The judge said that is “undoubtedly” an option and “may even be the most appropriate one,” but he also floated another path: letting the authority revise its policy again, fix constitutional defects, and reconsider the ad under a lawful standard.
Airports like ad and concessions revenue, but since in the U.S. they’re mostly owned by local government local politics gets involved.
- PETA sued the San Diego airport after its ad was rejected
- The NAACP got into a dispute with the Philadelphia airport, which the ACLU says takes some issue ads, but rejects other advocacy ads.
- Southwest pilots sued Chicago over a banned airport billboard, and won.
Chicago Tribune reports: Judge orders Chicago to allow Southwest pilots billboard at Midway https://t.co/WMS2evH1wM pic.twitter.com/tyyfUfAOLi
— Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (@swapapilots) May 15, 2016
I’ve written for years about airports turning concession decisions into ideological decisions. San Antonio became the poster child when its airport moved to block Chick-fil-A over politics. Buffalo saw similar pressure dynamics around a Chick-fil-A-branded concept in airport concessions planning.
The connective tissue is simple: airports want to monetize captive foot traffic, but they also want wide discretion to block messages (or brands) someone finds objectionable. However, if you run a public facility and sell access, first amendment rules apply.
Proving once again we live in stupid. Most HR Departments take reports of sexual abuse, unwanted sexual advances very seriously. But HR Department should know there’s a difference between “I like the color of that dress” and “hey baby I’d like to see you out of that dress.” But again, when you live in stupid there can be no delineations.
If the airport returned the money and continued to fight, that is one thing, but if they kept the money and did not fulfil the contract, they are in the wrong.
How can they take the money and then not post it? Seems like a bait-and-switch?
Was there an option to change the ad (even though the ad seemed perfectly fine for me, and the judge should rule in the law firms way, IMO)?