U.S. DISTRICT COURT ISSUES RULING IN FAVOR OF UNITED IN RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CASE
November 18, 2022
On September 30, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a decision in a case brought against United Airlines by two passengers alleging unlawful and discriminatory treatment. The plaintiffs, an Asian American woman and her husband, a Black man of Jamaican descent allegedly were permanently removed from their Newark to Miami flight following an on-board incident involving a change in seats with a white passenger. Following the incident, the plaintiffs were confronted by an air marshal, a gate manager, and a Port Authority officer. The officer allegedly ordered the plaintiffs to deboard while threatening to arrest them and/or ban them from flying out of EWR airport in the future. The plaintiffs also alleged that following their disembarkment, they were surrounded by several armed officers. The plaintiffs allegedly were then informed that the pilot had decided to permanently remove them from the flight to appease the white passenger and that they would need to book another flight. United sent an apology to the plaintiffs nearly a month after the incident and offered to compensate them, but the plaintiffs declined and filed the instant action.
The plaintiffs asserted 8 total claims for: (1) racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (2) discrimination in violation of the Federal Aviation Act (the “FAA Act”); (3) false imprisonment; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligence; (6) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention; (7) race discrimination in violation of the NJLAD; and (8) a claim for equitable relief under the NJLAD. In response, United made a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims arguing that claims 1, 7 and 8 failed because the plaintiffs did not allege a discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 or the NJLAD, that the FAA Act’s discrimination provision provides no private right of action (to which the plaintiffs ultimately agreed), and that counts 3, 5 and 6 should be dismissed because they were preempted by the NJLAD or if not preempted, for failure to state a valid claim.
The Court generally agreed with United’s arguments, finding that the plaintiffs had not presented any facts showing that discrimination on the part of United had occurred and resulted in their removal. The Court pointed out that the plaintiffs were ultimately removed based on the pilot’s decision to ban them from the flight following the incident on board, but that no facts were alleged to suggest that the pilot knew the plaintiffs’ races at the time he made the decision. On the plaintiffs’ common law claims (i.e., the false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, general negligence, and negligence in hiring, training, supervision, and retention claims), the Court also found in favor of United, stating that the plaintiffs had not plead enough facts to support their claims that United employees were the ones who falsely imprisoned them or inflicted intentional emotional distress. Likewise, the Court also reasoned that the plaintiffs had not shown that United owed a duty of care to protect them from the actions of outside third parties, meaning their negligence claim was unsupported, and that the plaintiffs also had not shown a lack of training on the part of United, thus undercutting their negligent training claim.
The plaintiffs have been granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days, but no further action has been taken.
If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Sahr (esahr@eckertseamans.com 202-659-6622) or Drew Derco (dderco@eckertseamans.com 202-659-6665).
Share This Post
Authors
