A Florida man of Portuguese descent did not have his civil rights violated when the captain of an American Airlines flight ordered him off his flight for security reasons, a federal appeals court in Boston ruled this week.
The appeals court overturned a federal jury's verdict in the case, ruling it had erred in ordering American Airlines to pay $400,000 in damages to the passenger, John Cerqueira, because the jurors received the wrong instructions. According to the ruling by the appeals court, the district court failed to inform jurors that the law allows airlines to refuse to transport anyone who "the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety."
"No properly instructed jury could return a verdict against the air carrier," the court ruled. "The instructions also erroneously appeared to equate acting based on any perceptions of a person's race or ethnic heritage with illegal discrimination.
"Race or ethnic origin of a passenger may, depending on context, be relevant information in the total mix of information raising concerns that transport of a passenger 'might be' inimical to safety."
The captain of American Airlines Flight 2237 said he ordered Cerqueira, who was trying to fly from Boston to Fort Lauderdale on Dec. 28, 2003, removed because of a series of actions that he regarded as suspicious.
The captain, whose name was not included in the ruling, testified that he had run into Cerqueira before the flight. He said Cerqueira had approached him and asked him whether he was the captain of the flight to Fort Lauderdale. When he responded that he was the captain, he testified, Cerqueira said: "Good. I'm going with you. We're going to have a good day today."
The captain testified that it was "probably one of the most odd exchanges that I've ever had with anyone in my entire career, and it concerned me greatly."
The captain and flight attendants said the man had changed seats, to an exit row, and had been acting bizarrely.
One flight attendant described Cerqueira as "very hostile and extremely insistent that his seat be switched to an exit row seat." According to the decision, he "continued to stare at her and sat down right close to the gate. . . . [T]he entire time that she worked at the gate he was just sitting there staring at her, making her extremely uncomfortable."
A lawyer representing Cerqueira argued that the ruling legitimizes racial profiling.
"In writing that safety takes precedence over civil rights, the court put its stamp of approval on racial profiling," Michael Kirkpatrick, his lawyer, said in a statement. "We believe this decision opens the door for airlines to arbitrarily violate the rights of passengers."
He added: "There is no conflict between safety and civil rights, because decisions based on racial profiling are irrational and cannot provide a legitimate basis for concluding that a passenger might be a security threat."
