5th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Gay Couple's Lawsuit Against United Airlines

As some readers will recall, back in August, 2012, a young professional gay couple filed a lawsuit against United/Continental Airlines in connection with an outrage done to them by employees of United/Continental Airlines at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.  Here are some highlights of the facts as laid out in the lawsuit:

On May 21, 2011, Plaintiff's a homosexual couple, were returning from vacation on a flight provided by Defendants United Continental Holdings, Inc., and Continental Airlines, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Continental") from Costa Rica to Norfolk, Virginia with a layover at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.  When Plaintiffs arrived at Houston, they retrieved their checked luggage, which was undisturbed at that time.  After going through Customs, Plaintiffs rechecked their bags, and proceeded to board their flight to Norfolk.  Upon arriving in Norfolk, Plaintiffs exited the aircraft and went to the baggage claim area.  Plaintiffs' bags were sent to the baggage carousel where Plaintiffs discovered to their horror, that a private sex toy had been removed from one of their bags, covered with a greasy foul-smelling substance, and taped prominently to the top of their bag.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas opted to tax the lazy easy  way out and dismissed the lawsuit citing narrow provisions of the Montreal Convention, more formally known as the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air.  Today, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court and remanded the case back for trial.  Here are excerpts from the 5th Circuit's ruling:

This appeal involves whether two airline travelers’ state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and negligence in connection with the airline’s alleged placement of a sex toy on their baggage are preempted by Article 17(1) or Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention. We hold that the plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by either. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss and REMAND for further proceedings.

Article 17 of the Montreal Convention contains two provisions relevant to this case: Article 17(1) imposes liability on carriers for injuries to passengers and Article 17(2) for damage to baggage. 2242 U.N.T.S. at 355. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that their state-law claims do not fall within the scope of either provision. We agree and address each provision in turn.

Here, any connection between the alleged misconduct—the display of Plaintiffs’ bag in the baggage-claim area—and the “operations of embarking or disembarking” [within the scope of Article 17(1)] is tenuous at best.

Plaintiffs’ state-law claims rely on the fact that their bag was “in the charge of the carrier,” and it is clear that their bag was not destroyed or lost. Thus, whether Article 17(2) preempts Plaintiffs’ claims boils down to whether they seek a remedy for “damage to checked baggage.”

We hold that they do not and that, therefore, Article 17(2) does not preempt Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

No doubt Continental will be less than pleased with today's ruling.  Now, the question is whether the airline will accept responsibility for the acts of its employees and do the right thing or continue to litigate the matter.   Either way, I will continue to avoid United Airlines when I travel based on the experiences of my good friends.