Jury awards airline passenger $400,000

boston.com ^ | 01/16/07 | Shelley Murphy

[Ellesu]

A federal jury has ordered American Airlines to pay $400,000 to a computer consultant who was pulled from a flight at Logan International Airport because of security concerns, then denied reboarding even after he had been cleared by State Police. "I felt like I was being treated like a terrorist and there was no way I could prove I didn't do anything or say anything at all," said John Cerqueira , 39, who grew up in Fall River and now lives in Miami. "I'm grateful to the jury for sending the message to American Airlines that just the use of the word security isn't an excuse for unlawful behavior."

[Just sayin]

I've been treated badly by businesses in the past, and have made subsequent purchasing decisions with those incidents in mind.

Some have lost sight of that very valid and proper response to disagreement with a business owners choice.

[taxcontrol]

Irrelevant.

I see this as a first amendment freedom of association issue. An airline ticket is a private contract between the airline and the individual. The airline agrees to provide a service (the flight) to an individual, subject to government regulations and the disclaimers of the airline. Just as other retailers reserve the right to refuse service, the airline should have the same right.

In the worst case, damages should be limited to 3 times actual damages (the price of the ticket). This is the same 3 times limit that applies when someone willfully defrauds another.

[NorthFlaRebel]

Do you hold the decision as to who rides in your car or do I hold that decision to be made for you? It is your car right? It is their airplane just as it is your car. When you are prepared to give up the right to make your own decisions concerning your own property, you let me know ok?

While I certainly agree with you concerning private property, you are probably well aware that you as a business owner can not deny someone service because of their race. An airline can not deny service because of people's race. This guy was detained simply because of his race(and because he looked like the Israelis acting suspicious). The cops that interviewed him agreed there.

Say you own a store and accuse someone of shoplifting. You call the cops and they determine it was a misunderstanding and the person did not shoplift. You as the owner can not go ahead and have the cops issue a tresspass warrant against the person because you still "disagree". I don't really see any difference here with this passenger(although I agree $400K is excessive, and I think the jury did it to send a point).

Also, the entire argument is really moot due to the fact that airlines simply can not be considered private property due to Federal control.

[doc30]

Do you hold the decision as to who rides in your car or do I hold that decision to be made for you? It is your car right? It is their airplane just as it is your car. When you are prepared to give up the right to make your own decisions concerning your own property, you let me know ok?

It should be entirely up to a business who it will serve? Yes or no?

[Tzimisce]

what happened to the right to refuse service?

[Courdeleon02]

An absurd judgment $400,000 is ridiculous. It decisions like this that will bankrupt American business. I hope there is an appeal.

[Gritty]

[BuffaloJack]

It's liberals like this who sue for trivial reasons that cost us all more money through litigation.
Profiling is good. Refund the price of his ticket or ask him to check his carry-ons so that there would be no chance of concealing a weapon. It is the captain's decision.
To fee outrage is just to be like the enemy. If his name was on a suspicious persons list, or he was acting suspicious then confront him. But an award of $400K will just make the price of flying higher to everyone.
The USA is at war and this carries with it different methods that must be imposed to keep us secure.

[Courdeleon02]

Your point is ridiculous. He suffered inconvenience and little financial loss. $5,000 would have been more appropriate.

[Just sayin]

Paying the race card huh? Not surprising, it happens often. It is my position that if a black man doesn't want to do business with a white man he should have that choice, and all the responsibility that comes along with that action.

Rather than laws mandating such things, allow that personal responsibility to handle it. When a business gets a reputation for being racist in nature, how long is it going to last in today's world? Let the free market work, it does work when it is allowed to do so.

I don't care what reason a business ownr has, it is his choice, not mine.

Cannot be considered private property huh? Imagine that. Stalin would be proud to the point of tears. Tell me then, with all the regulation in all business, just take the card you played to start this post, NO BUSINESS can be 'considered' pivate then huh?

[Just sayin]

Yes it should be. That is the very essence of the line of seperation between public and private. It is also the line of seperation between freedom and tyrany.

If a certain clientel, for whatever reason, is not being serviced then a demand is created and more business can be expanded.

[NorthFlaRebel]

Again, I do not disagree with you on the concept of private property or freedom of association. I'm against all laws that infringe upon the rights associated with either. I'm simply stating that our opinions do not matter because the law does not reflect our opinion. As a matter of law, one can not discriminate against another based upon race. Not my opinion nor my stance. It what the law says. That's what essentially occurred here. A problem arose, it was cleared up and the business(in this case, an airline) still discriminated against the person, who had been cleared of having done nothing wrong, by refusing him service anyway. $400K is certainly ridiculous, however.

[doc30]

A personal auto is not the same as a commercial airliner. An airline is a public accomodation, just like a restaurant or a hotel. You can't deny one person business but accept it from another on arbitrary or personal grounds. When you open a business, that 'right to make your own decisions concerning your own property' is restricted. Period.

Based on your arguement, a business can deny service to anyone as a matter of personal choice. So you have no problem with blacks having to sit at the back of the bus or being denied service because a private restaurant only wants to serve white customers. Just let the free market create a business that caters to blacks, or to everybody. Thank you for proving you support racism, discrimination based on disablity or even very basic health and safety standards. You disgust me and I will justly ignore you.

[Just sayin]

Time to change the law huh. Time to change lawmakers so we can change the law.

[doc30]

I think the jury sent a deserved message to the airlines with the high dollar figure, regardless of financial loss.

[RadioAstronomer]

Ouch. Sorry you have to sell the Vette.

Mine is a 2006.

[Just sayin]

The whole point of owning a business, of putting your own money on the line, is to be able to make those exact decisions. Arbitrary and personal grounds is the exact reason one seeks to own their own business instead of working for someone else. Why is it you seek to remove choice? Simply becasue you don't like the choice made? What gives you that right?

If something is funded by taxpayer dollars, taxpayer rules shall apply, see this >>>> they are the owners. That is where the line rests. Private dollars means private decisions and public dollars means public decisions. You have removed that line entirely. Please explain what gives youthe right to do so.

Your claim that I support racism is a huge dodge and serious spin. I said quite clearly that if a person operates a business that makes racist choices they hold the personal responsiblity for doing so. Please do explain how me saying that equates to me supporting racist decisions. This I gotta hear.

Let me explain something to you. A person can support another's right to make a decision while opposing 100% the actual choice that person makes. Do you understand the difference? Or do you simply seek to play the race card and throw out labels in order to mask the fact that you do not comprehend something this simple?

I don't like red, therfor you should not be able to buy a red car. I think that this grocery store should not be selling hamhocks, so therfor they cannot do so. I think that grocery store should be selling Halal meat therfor they must do so. See the problem with your position yet?
Or do you still support your contention that private business does not have the right to make arbitrary and personal decisions?

When you seek to impose your choice on everyone else, you are indeed endangering your own choice. For when you back such imposition, it is only a matter of time before someone else's decision is imposed on you.

I am not saying you have to like or agree with the choice made. I am not saying that you cannot voice your position concerning that choice made. I am Just sayin that you have to accept the fact that it isn't your choice to make, it is theirs to make. If you make the choice not to accept that, then you must admit you live in denial of a stark reality.....(that being that it is not your choice to make)or you don't really believe in free choice at all. So which is it?

[surrey]

This was the topic for discussion on our Boston radio station this morning. Evidently, he arrived at the airport early and asked to have his seat changed. He wanted an exit row for more legroom. He boarded the aircraft and went to the lav, sat down and took out his laptop. The 2 Israelis focused attention on themselves when they told the pilot while boarding that it was going to be a great flight and wishing all the passengers a Happy New Year. When the authorities approached the row, they were all sitting in ,Cerqueira had fallen asleep.
Frankly, it doesn't sound like he did anything wrong.

[Just sayin]

Does 'changing seats' at the last minute have any precident?

[FairOpinion]

If that's all that's happened something is wrong, when airliners eject innocent passengers, but don't profile potential terrorists.

Remember Reid, the shoebomber, was not allowed on one flight, but the next day they let him right onto the plane.