U.S. DISTRICT COURT ISSUES ORDER IN DISCRIMINATION CASE AGAINST AMERICAN AIRLINES
March 18, 2022
On January 31, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (hereinafter “the Court”) issued an Order effectively allowing a case brought by a passenger who alleged racial discrimination on the part of American Airlines (“American”) to continue. The passenger alleged that she was discriminated against while trying to board her flight from Miami, Florida to San Francisco, California. According to the passenger, following a disagreement between herself and an American gate agent regarding the size of her carry-on luggage, she was prevented from boarding her fight due to the size of her luggage, while other Caucasian and Hispanic passengers with luggage that was roughly the same size were allowed to board.
In early January, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant American alleging three causes of action, (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence under California law; and (3) a federal claim for racial discrimination. American subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff’s negligence and breach of contract claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) and a Motion to Strike several paragraphs of the plaintiff’s complaint arguing that American had a travel advisory issued against it by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for “a pattern of disturbing incidents reported by African-American passengers.” The Court granted American’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s negligence and breach of contract claims as the plaintiff had alleged that California law should apply to the negligence claim, even though the event in question occurred in Florida, and failed to identify which states’ contract law should be applied for the breach of contract claim. The Court did, however, deny American’s Motion to Strike because it believed that the relevance of the challenged allegations was at least in doubt, American failed to show how the plaintiff’s allegations of publicly available facts prejudiced it in this case, and it believed the motion to strike would do nothing to streamline the resolution of the case.
The Court has yet to issue a final determination on the plaintiff’s remaining claim asserting racial discrimination.
If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Sahr (esahr@eckertseamans.com 202-659-6622) or Drew Derco (dderco@eckertseamans.com 202-659-66652).
Share This Post
Authors
