Compass Airlines, LLC v. Mont. Dep't of Labor & Indus.
| Decision Date | 12 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | CV 12-105-H-CCL |
| Parties | COMPASS AIRLINES, LLC Plaintiff, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, HEARINGS BUREAU, Defendant, and DUSTIN HANKINSON, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 33 and 36), Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) and Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 50). The motions came on regularly for hearing onJune 18, 2013. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Jeffrey Ellis, and Intervenor was represented by Mr. Brian J. Miller. Defendant Montana administrative agency has chosen not to participate in this proceeding.
In this case, the primary issue to be decided by the Court is whether federal law preempts the state law underlying Intervenor Hankinson's complaint against Compass Airlines, as currently presented to the Montana Department of Labor and Industry. The parties now seek final decision on Plaintiff Compass Airlines' declaratory judgment request. The Court will address the Intervenor's Motion for Reconsideration first because it requires consideration of the most current arguments of the parties in light of recent Ninth Circuit case law. These considerations will have the added benefit of focusing the arguments on the cross-motions for summary judgment and the motion to dismiss.
This declaratory judgment action brought by Plaintiff Compass Airlines, LLC ("Compass Airlines" or "Compass"), seeks the Court's declaration that the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 ("ACAA"), 49 U.S.C. § 41705, has preempted thefield of law raised by Intervenor's underlying claims and, in addition, has displaced all state law remedies available to Intervenor. On December 27, 2012, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (after granting the prior motion for temporary restraining order on December 13, 2012). The Court found that Plaintiff had clearly demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, a threat of imminent and irreparable harm, the balance of equities tipping in its favor, and a furtherance of the public interest, all in support of the granting of a preliminary injunction.
The Intervenor in this action, is Mr. Dustin Hankinson ("Intervenor" or "Hankinson"). The facts are not in dispute, and the Court accepts the facts alleged by Intervenor and all inferences therefrom.1 Mr. Hankinson was scheduled to flyout of Missoula, Montana, on October 4, 2011, on Flight 5820,2 to receive an award in Washington, D.C. for disability advocacy, when a Compass Airlines flight attendant challenged his qualification to fly on the aircraft. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that Mr. Hankinson was late arriving to the gate, after all other passengers had boarded the aircraft. Mr. Hankinson has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, and he uses a portable ventilator and a power wheelchair. The flight attendant, who believed that Hankinson was required to present a medical certificate before he could bring a portable oxygen concentrator ("POC") device on the flight, never actually spoke to Hankinson but instead directed thegate agent to tell Hankinson that he could not board Flight 5820. The aircraft door was shut, and the gate agent denied Hankinson permission to board the aircraft.
The flight attendant was in error, however, because Hankinson was only bringing a ventilator, not a POC, on the flight, and he had cleared the use of this device with Delta in advance of the flight.3 United States Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulations did not require Hankinson to present a medical certificate or doctor's letter of approval for the flight. After Hankinson was denied boarding by the flight attendant, the gate agent called the Conflict Resolution Officer ("CRO")4 to come to the gate to help Hankinson resolve this denial of service. The CRO spoke directly with the pilot, and the CROrecommended that the pilot reverse the flight attendant's decision and allow Hankinson to board the craft. (ECF No. 37-2, Exhibit B, at 15.) The pilot agreed to do so. Hankinson was told that the pilot would open the aircraft door and permit him to board the aircraft. By this time, however, Hankinson, who was flying to Washington, D.C., to accept an award for his disability advocacy, did not wish to board the aircraft, allegedly due to what he perceived to be a hostile environment.5 (ECF No. 37-2, Exhibit B, at 33.) Hankinson therefore declined to board Flight 5820 and instead left the airport and went home. Both Hankinson and his traveling companion received refunds for their tickets.
Later that day or the next, Hankinson filed a complaint with DOT. Pursuant to the ACAA and its implementing regulations, the DOT immediately began its mandatory investigation of Compass Airlines' alleged refusal to transport Hankinson. See 49 U.S.C. § 41705(c)(1). DOT's first action was to refer thecomplaint to Delta Airlines, which began an investigation while simultaneously referring the complaint to its partner, Compass Airlines.
Delta informed Compass Airlines that under DOT guidelines it had roughly seven days to complete its investigation (until October 13, 2011). Delta demanded from Compass all relevant employee statements on DOT forms and all Compass reports. Compass Airlines then conducted its own internal investigation, which was completed by October 10, 2011, six days after the incident.
During the October 4 flight to Minneapolis/St. Paul, the two flight attendants and the captain were notified by Compass managers to report immediately to their respective supervisors upon landing. The first flight attendant insisted that she had rightfully denied boarding to Hankinson because he had an unapproved POC medical device and no medical waiver. She admitted that she did not check her flight manual or request a CRO's assistance (both of which were required by the Compass Airlines Flight Attendant Manual). The other flight attendant did not have any contact with Mr. Hankinson at all, and he never questioned the female flight attendant who made the boarding decision, nor did hecheck his flight attendant's manual. (ECF No. 37-2, Exhibit B, at 51.) The captain informed his supervisor that he had relied on the female flight attendant's assertion that a medical waiver was required for Hankinson's boarding, but obviously he reversed that decision at the urging of the CRO. (ECF No. 37-2, Exhibit B at 52.)
Both flight attendants were suspended immediately after giving their statements, and both were fired seven days later, on October 11, 2011. The captain was temporarily suspended pending the investigation, and he was ultimately given a seven-day suspension without pay for lack of leadership. He was subsequently provided with additional training regarding passengers with disability. The first officer also received the additional training regarding treatment of passengers with disabilities. (ECF No. 37-2, Exhibit B, at 53.)
(ECF No. 37-2, Exhibit B at 10.)
In accordance with one of the ACAA's implementing regulations, 14 C.F.R. 14 C.F.R. § 3582.19(d), the CRO sent a "ten-day letter" to Hankinson, explaining in writing the carrier's reason for the refusal to provide air travel. In that letter, the CRO admitted that a violation of the federal regulations under the ACAA had occurred. (ECF No. 37-2, Exhibit B at 15-16.)
In its official response letter to Hankinson, Delta apologized for both its and Compass Airlines' errors and also for Compass's initial refusal to allow Hankinson to board Flight 5820. (ECF No. 37-2, Exhibit B at 12-13.) Both Deltaand Compass Airlines admitted that the initial refusal of air transportation was erroneous and that a violation of 14 C.F.R. Part 382 had occurred. Delta's letters to Hankinson informed him that the following corrective measures had been or soon would be taken: the flight attendants and the captain had been suspended and an investigation had been initiated; the captain and first officer would receive additional training on passengers with disabilities; all Compass flight attendants would receive additional training on passengers with disabilities and assistive medical equipment; all new hires and future classes would receive specific training on passengers with disabilities; and the manuals for both flight attendants and also for pilots would state that no passenger would be denied boarding without the captain of the aircraft having direct consultation with a CRO. (ECF No. 37-2, Exhibit B at 15.)
Through the two-month period of DOT's investigation, Compass Airlines participated actively by transmitting all of its reports and employee statements to Delta (which in turn was required to send all of Compass's correspondence, reports, and employee statements to the DOT).
To continue reading
Request your trial