United Airlines Chief Resigns Over Corruption Investigation

During the early stages of the saga of my Norfolk friends who had their luggage sabotaged by United/Continental Airlines personnel, I had occasion to write a letter to Jeff Smisek, the CEO of United/Continental Airlines.  To say that the response I received from Mr. Smisek's minions was haughty and, in my opinion, full of BS, would be an understatement.  Well, Karma can really be a bitch.  Today, Smisek resigned in the fallout from a corruption investigation surrounding the New York Port Authority Chris Christie BridgeGate scandal.  The New York Times looks at Smisek's resignation and the growing corruption scandal.  Here are excepts:

United Airlines said on Tuesday that its chief executive, Jeff Smisek, and two other senior officials had stepped down amid a federal corruption investigation.

The airline is under investigation by the United States attorney in New Jersey over whether it had improperly sought to influence senior officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

“The departures announced today are in connection with the company’s previously disclosed internal investigation related to the federal investigation associated with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,” the company said in a statement. “The investigations are ongoing and the company continues to cooperate with the government.”

United’s executive vice president for communications and government affairs, Nene Foxhall, and the senior vice president for corporate and government affairs, Mark R. Anderson, also resigned, the company said.

In February, federal prosecutors issued subpoenas focused on whether the former chairman of the Port Authority, David Samson, had pushed United to reinstate flights that he used to travel to and from his weekend home in South Carolina.

Ms. Foxhall and Mr. Anderson were among the United officials whose communications with the Port Authority had been subpoenaed.

The resignations also complicate the fortunes of Mr. Christie as he tries to resurrect his once-promising presidential bid, by underscoring the accusations of cronyism that have dogged his administration since the bridge scandal broke in early 2014. The governor has distanced himself from other figures implicated in the scandal, saying that they deceived him. But Mr. Samson, despite his resignation, has remained one of the governor’s closest advisers.

 Good riddance!!!

Federal Court Jury Begins Hearing Evidence in Gay Couple's Suit Against United/Continental Airlines

Christopher Bridgeman and Martin Borger with us on our wedding day in DC

I noted on May 3, 2015, that the case of our good friend against United/Continental Airlines for seemingly homophobic tampering with their luggage was set to go to trial in federal court after all kinds or maneuvering and court motions by United/Continental to have the case dismissed or to drive my friends into giving up (the court docket shows over 100 filings and motions).  Yesterday, the trial began and the story has made the Houston Chronicle and Towleroad.  As I have said before, given the fortune in legal fees that United/Continental has run up in this matter to date, I am dumbfounded that the airline - which claims to be gay friendly - has never made a settlement offer that, in my opinion, wasn't yet an a further insult to our friends.   Particularly disingenuous in my view is the airlines effort to shift blame to TSA personnel even though the tape used to affix the sex toy was clearly the airline's tap.  Here are highlights from the Chronicle's coverage:

A Houston federal jury is hearing opening arguments Tuesday in a case where baggage handlers are accused of humiliating a gay couple by manipulating a duffle bag to cause a sex toy to be exposed when released on a baggage claim carousel.

Christopher Bridgeman and Martin Borger filed the suit after a trip to Costa Rica in May 2011. They returned to the United States on a Continental flight through Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport, cleared customs and rechecked their bags for the domestic trip home to Norfolk, Va.

Upon retrieving their belongings, they discovered an unexpected object taped between the zipper of one piece of luggage: A purple sex toy. The Virginia couple's 2012 federal lawsuit, filed in Houston, alleges that the device had been removed purposefully from the duffle and slathered with a greasy, foul-smelling substance to embarrass them. The petition claims the airline's baggage handlers intentionally inflicted emotional distress and invaded their privacy by searching through their luggage.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt of Houston dismissed the case in late 2012, but a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reinstated the lawsuit a year later.

Since then, Continental's parent following that carrier's merger with United - United Continental Holdings - has been trying to have the lawsuit sacked.

United claims their employees did not open the bag and could not have known what was inside to intentionally target gay men. The airline's filings in the suit also question whether any alleged intrusion was the fault of a United employee because the federal Transportation Security Administration screens luggage and has some in-transit control over baggage.

The lawsuit has been featured in national news stories and discussed in legal blogs for more than three years.

Trial exhibits include photos of the toy. Expected witnesses include United baggage handlers based in Houston and Norfolk as well as the general manager of the Norfolk International Airport.

As recently as last week, Hoyt denied United's claim to side with the company – thus, leaving the door open for trial.

Seven jurors – four women and three men – were selected Monday for the trial. Jurors also will consider if any airline employee intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the men.

The lawsuit claims that Bridgeman and Borger "experienced extreme shock and horror" when they saw their toy exposed and "when observing the surprised and/or laughing faces of numerous onlookers in the baggage claim area."

As noted before, I will NEVER fly United/Continental and I would like to know how the NGLCC allows United/Continental to remain a "gay friendly" carrier when this is how they treat gay travelers.  

Gay Couples Lawsuit Against United Airlines to Go to Trial

Back on August 26, 2012, I wrote here about the travesty done to a young gay professional couple from Norfolk (who are as a disclaimer close personal friends) seemingly by employees of United/Continental Airlines at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.  As I recited at the time, in response to demand letters, the leadership of the airline basically "flipped the bird" to these innocent victims and victimized them yet again - even though United/Continental Airlines claims to be LGBT friendly through their involvement with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.  In my view - and as the saying goes - actions speak louder than words.  And Continental's actions have spoken volumes.  So much so, that the husband and I have made a point to NOT fly on United/Continental since 2012 (our upcoming trip to Paris will be on American Airlines).

For those who are newer readers, the tape on the bag pictured above clearly reads "Continental Airlines" and tellingly, the zipper on the bag was undamaged (I saw the luggage bag personally), so that there was no legitimate basis for taping up the bag while unzipped.  The actions against this couple by United/Continental employees were both shocking and clearly done to invade the couple's privacy and to inflict intentional emotional distress as the baggage made its way around the luggage carousel at Norfolk International Airport to the couple's horror.

 

Due to the airline's shocking attitude, the couple filed a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas District Court, in a lawsuit is styled Bridgeman, et al v. United Continental Holdings, Inc. and Continental Airlines, Inc., on August 24, 2012.  Since that date, the case history has been like something out of a John Grisham novel with the huge corporation trying any and all means to wear down the individual plaintiffs.  United Continental first removed the case to federal court (the case is Case 4:12-cv-02848) and argued that Article 17(1) or Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention - which governs international flights - applied and that the couple's claims are preempted.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas accepted this argument and dismissed the case.  Our friends appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal in November, 2013, and remanded the case back to the District Court.   As Jonathan Turley noted on his blog, this was an important (and negative) ruling for the airline United/Continental and the airline industry:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has handed down an important ruling in favor of two gay men who were the targets of a foul joke by employees of United Continental airlines. 

What is most striking about this case is not only the refusal of United Continental to settle the case but the sweeping argument the airlines tried to make to strip passengers of the ability to seek damages for such outrageous and disturbing conduct by airlines.

The court found that the convention did not apply under Article 17(1) because this injury was not suffered on the flight or as part of exiting or disembarking. Thus, it remained subject to state law. On Article 17(2), the court ruled:

The alleged misconduct in this case simply does not relate to any damage to Plaintiffs’ duffel bag, which they admit is “just fine” and undamaged; rather, Plaintiffs seek a remedy for the way in which their bag was utilized to inflict personal injury. Accordingly, we decline to shoehorn Plaintiffs’ claims into the substantive scope of Article 17(2) merely because a bag is central to their factual basis. Instead, we reach our conclusion based on a natural reading of Article 17(2)’s text

The claims are therefore not preempted by the convention.  United Continental in the meantime showed that, once again, airlines treat passengers as voiceless, rightless living luggage. If they had prevailed, passengers would have been barred from seeking relief in state courts for even the most egregious conduct by airline employees.

Fast forward another year and a half and United/Continental has suffered a major blow.  After countless depositions and motions and briefs, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has denied United/Continental's motion for summary judgment.  The order was entered on April 29, 2015 and is now available on pacer for subscribers.This means that the case will go to trial and that there will be a public airing of some of the airline's, in my view, outrageous arguments and defenses.  For the life of me, I do NOT understand why the airline has not made a serious settlement offer.  It has already spent a huge sum on legal fees and settling would have avoided the bad precedent now set by the 5th Circuit ruling and continued bad publicity.

Stay tuned for more coverage as the matter goes to trial. 

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.

Sex Toy Lawsuit: Exclusive Interview By Channel 3's Barbara Ciara

UPDATED:  Last night's on camera interview of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against United Continental for desecrating their luggage can be found here.  I hope readers will listen to the interview and draw their own conclusions.  In doing so, remember this: the zipper on the luggage was completely undamaged and the tape shown in the photo had Continental Airline's logo on it.

Last month I wrote about the lawsuit filed against United Continental Airlines by two close friends who had their luggage desecrated by personnel at Houston Intercontinental Airport in Houston as they returned from a trip to Costa Rica.  I did a companion piece on The Bilerico Project that was picked up by Huffington Post which in turn went viral and literally swept the news media around the world.  Tonight at 11:00 PM the couple gives their first on camera interview to discuss their experience and their motivations for suing the airline.  Here are highlights from WTKR-TV 3 as it promotes the interview:

 

Most people who travel tolerate the fact that strangers go through their personal belongings inside their luggage. It’s creepy thinking of someone going through your underwear, but it’s an intrusion we have come to accept in the years since 9/11.

As Barbara Ciara reports, a Norfolk couple claims baggage handlers displayed the private contents of their luggage to create public pain.  Hear their story, tonight at 11.

Barbara Ciara is well respected in Hampton Roads and has shown herself to be non-judgmental of the LGBT community.  Hopefully, the interview will do the story and my friends justice.  I will report more tomorrow after the segment airs and is available on line.

Fighting Back: Motives of Gay Couple Suing United Airlines

When I wrote my post over the weekend on this blog and posted a largely identical post on The Bilerico Project on Monday, I seriously never dreamed that the story would go nearly viral and that I'd be contacted from everyone from local media outlets to The Daily Mail in London, England   But, the story does seem to have taken on a life of its own.  Even the far right blog Free Republic has picked up the story, where much to my surprise, some of the comments - especially from women - have been supportive of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  Sadly, some of the comments on the numerous blog posts and news stories, including some on my Bilerico post have been not so nice.  Comments have ranged from thinking the situation is a hoax, to demeaning the plaintiffs for calling friends to come to their assistance, to saying that the lawsuit is all about money. 

Having been involved in this story from almost its inception - I received a call from the plaintiffs at about 1:00 AM after their experience at the Norfolk airport and,  since I am a member of the State Bar of Texas, I wrote the initial demand latter to United Continental and received the airline's, in my view, pathetic response - I feel that some of the comments need to be addressed in no particular order. Not only for the sake of the plaintiffs, but also for my own credibility as an LGBT blogger and as a contributor to The Bilerico Project.

As to the comments that the whole thing is a hoax, I have a couple of responses.  First, having talked to the plaintiffs who are long time friends right after their return to Norfolk on May of last year, I seriously doubt that anything was made up or invented.  I'm the one, in fact who told them to take plenty of photos of the desecrated luggage before they extricated their things.  In addition, the friends who they called to the airport to assist them and drive them home are both highly regarded individuals, both of whom are straight and one of whom holds top security clearances.  They will prove to be highly credible witnesses and one's position will certainly turn some of the statements of some of the Free Republic crowd on their head.

As for those who say the entire lawsuit is about money, I likewise have several responses.  The first is to admit that yes, the suit does seek money damages, especially exemplary damages (also called punitive damages in some states).   Why the damage request?  I can tell you why.  As a former in-house attorney for a Fortune 50 company coincidentally based in Houston, I know first hand that in this nation's business world there are two things that keep large corporations and, indirectly their employees in line: strictly enforced regulations and the avoidance of paying out damage settlements.   If  one wants to get corporate CEO's to do the right thing, threaten the corporation's bank account and upset the shareholders.

The other aspect of this story is that this type of outrage could  happen to anyone, gay or straight.  When one has paid to have their checked baggage transported by a common carrier such as Continental Airlines, one should not have to worry that the luggage will be vandalized with the goal of humiliating the owner of the luggage.  In this instance, there is little doubt that the intent of perpetrator(s) was to inflict deliberate emotional harm.  In this case, the zipper on the checked bag was not damaged whatsoever.  There was no need to apply tape to the bag even if it had somehow come open.  Worse yet, there was no need to apply a foul smelling substance smeared with brown particulate matter to give the appearance that the sex toy had been used.  These actions were not inadvertently done.

I'm sure that whoever desecrated my friends' luggage had a good laugh at the thought of the luggage's owner's reaction upon viewing the sabotaged bag in the midst of a crowd at the luggage carousel.  Dharun Ravi likely laughed his ass off when he secretly broadcast video of Rutgers University student, Tyler Clementi.  We all know the tragic results of that prank - Tyler Clementi's suicide by jumping off of the George Washington Bridge.  Whoever was behind this sick stunt had no way of knowing how the bag's owner might respond.  Thankfully, this situation did not lead to a tragedy.  But it could have.  The plaintiffs are from Norfolk, Virginia, after all.  I assure you, this is not New York City or Los Angeles.  LGBT Virginians live under daily, state sponsored discrimination.  I personally have suffered harassment from certain members of the Norfolk Police Department and members of the Virginia judiciary simply because I am gay.  That is the climate in which the plaintiffs had to collect their bag in front of likely well over 100+ passengers and those meeting them. 

My last response involves a point that I've made many times both on this blog and on Bilerico: bad things happen because good people do nothing and allow hateful things to happen.  It's what I sometimes call the "good German" or "good Christian" phenomenon.   In this case, the plaintiffs could have done nothing and perhaps someone else would at some point find themselves subjected to some form similar of vile humiliation.  And just maybe that person might not hold themselves together and do something drastic.  By doing nothing one can become part of the problem.

For additional images and thoughts visit:  http://www.plight2171.com/