I. MRS. DIANA KIMYACIOGLU’S NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS WILL LIKELY NOT BE PREEMPTED UNDER THE AIRLINE DEREGULATION ACT.
Mrs. Diana Kimyacioglu’s negligence claims will likely not preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). The ADA provides a general preemption rule:
A state... may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation.
49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1) (1994) (emphasis added). Mrs. Kimyaciouglu’s particular situation is not related to the price or route of Trip Airways; thus, those elements are not in contention. However, how one defines the “services” part of the preemption provision is crucial in deciding…show more content… § 44902(b) (1996). However, there is a caveat to this rule. Airlines cannot remove passengers based on irrational or unreasonable fear, such as racial or religious animus. See Cordero v. Cia Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A., 681 F.2d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Williams v. Trans World Airlines, 509 F.2d 942 (2nd Cir. 1975) (“The test of whether or not the airline properly exercised its power…to refuse passage to an applicant or ticket-holder rests upon the facts and circumstances of the case as known to the airline.”))
Drawing upon the previous section and the discussion in this section, there is a three part test to determine whether a racial discrimination claim is preempted by the ADA: (1) the claim must not have a tenuous relationship to airline services; (2) the claim must occur during the furtherance of airline safety and security; and (3) the belief that the passenger is inimical to safety is not unreasonable or irrational. See 49 U.S.C. § 44902(b) (1996); Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254, 259 (4th Cir. 1998); Cordero v. Cia Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A., 681 F.2d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 1982).
A. Mrs. Kimyacioglu’s racial and religious discrimination claim has a tenuous relationship to services and does not warrant…show more content… Kimyacioglu’s character was irrational and unreasonable. Williams v. Midwest Airlines serves as an exemplar for this element. Here, Williams, a part of a successful and popular group, entered a plane. He was subsequently removed because the flight attendant became uncomfortable. He was accused of staring at the flight attendant and was met outside the plane by two deputies and a dog. Williams v. Midwest Airlines, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 993, 993 (E.D. Wis. 2004). The Court found that the case was preempted because planes had the right to refuse transport to passengers. Id. at 955. However, certain aspects were not preempted such as the racial discrimination claims and unreasonable and irrational fear, which led to the alleged racial discrimination. Id. at 955. (“The fact that plaintiffs’ state law tort claim are preempted does not mean that plaintiffs’ complaint must be
