UA forcibly remove random pax from flight - Round 2
 

A former aviation officer who dragged a United Airlines passenger off an oversold flight last April is suing the airline and his former employer, the Chicago Department of Aviation, ABC 7 reported on Tuesday.
In the lawsuit, the former officer, James Long, claims that he wasn't properly trained to handle passengers who misbehaved and that United "knew or should have known" that calling aviation officers to "remove a passenger who was refusing to leave their plane would require the use of physical force."
Long also argues that he was fired on unfair terms and subject to slander after videos of him and other officers dragging the passenger off the plane went viral.

Okay, I give up, what is an ‘aviation officer’ ?

It's a Chicago cop who is assigned to the airport, I think.

I particularly liked the comment quoting a tweet from the Chicago Department of Aviation saying :
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/o...airline-2018-4

Very popular to bag on this guy but he was doing what he was hired for and what, essentially, he was tasked to do...written or not. For me? I feel the lawsuit is fair game. He was outed in the media and used as a scapegoat by all parties.

Have things changed? Yes. Should he be scarred for life? No.

There is more to this story than is reported. The officers didn’t abuse him, he resisted and smacked his face as a result.

I agree, somewhat.
But I am glad that that those officers were not armed - not even with Tasers.

And this comment is definitely not intended to be a start to another round of firearms control venting. Take that argument elsewhere.

What was “random” about the removal of this passenger? Presumably he was selected from the manifest for whatever reason(s) UA thought they had. That seems rather specific rather than random.

Took the title from the original thread which is now closed.
And that probably came from some newspapers headline.

PPRuNe: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight

Enjoy.

If he was doing what his employers had tasked him to do, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on - “I was just following orders” hasn’t been an excuse for illegal behaviour for a long time now. If he assaulted the passenger on his own initiative, he also doesn’t have a leg to stand on as he was acting outside his job description. He shouldn’t need training to know what he was doing was wrong.

I don’t agree. The officer was acting like a thug with a badge, and used extremely poor judgment in dealing with a passenger who had done nothing wrong. The only reason he’s suing is because he’s ruined his own reputation and won’t be able to find a job as a mall cop from now on.

Blaming the victim for the assault. Nice.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Illinois an at-will employment state? Meaning you can be fired without reason?

Also, the truth is a defence to a slander/libel suit. Video evidence which shows the guy assaulting the passenger would be evidence as to the truth of what happened - I can’t see the slander in that. :=

"At will" doesn't apply to public employees who work under a CBA/contract.

They're actually City of Chicago Aviation Department employees, not CPD. They have limited arrest rights and don't carry weapons, though they are certified Illinois law officers.

In any case, Illinois is one of the last remaining bastions of union power in the U.S. and is not an at-will employment state.

Chipzilla, I'm certainly not taking sides here...to much is still unclear...however.

A decision was made to remove the passenger (right or wrong) and a sworn peace officer was tasked with that passengers removal due to his failure to comply with a lawful order from the flight crew.

So....

1) Under no reasonable circumstances (that I am aware of) is his behavior "illegal". His job was in fact to remove the non complying passenger who disobeyed a direct order from a law enforcement official. This is not meant to defend United in any way but to try and objectively look at the officers role in this...

2) This "thug with a badge" rhetoric is dangerous. Yes bad, rogue and even criminal conduct does occur and needs to be carefully monitored and prosecuted as appropriate....but this falls far short of that criteria. Once United chose to resort to escalating this situation to involve law enforcement the passenger failed to recognize the difference.

From my limited perspective the lawsuit actually stands on it's merits very well. The true fault lies with United and the irate passenger....the poor shmuck in the middle trying to his job (admittedly poorly) was guilty of questionable judgement in not calling for a supervisor or for CPD (if they were allowed on the plane). The flip side is how would he be viewed for "failing" to do his job in that case....

The term "Resisting" would apply only in the case where the individual trying to use force on the passenger was acting under legitimate authority. If, for example, a passenger was sitting quietly in his seat and a fellow passenger, or a member of the cleaning crew, had grabbed him and tried to drag him off the airplane for no legitimate reason, and if the passenger had refused to be easily dragged, one would not term that "resisting," one would term it "defending oneself against assault and battery."

In this particular case, it's very much unclear that the individuals assaulting Dr. Dao had the legitimate authority to act as they did. In fact, United's apology and settlement, and the dismissal of one of the attackers for misconduct, would suggest that they didn't.

Since the passenger was not convicted of resisting arrest, nor of assault, nor of anything else for that matter, I'd suggest that "resisting" does not apply here.

Even that is still unclear. What is the lawful order from the flight crew to which you refer here? Contrary to what we might like to believe, the captain's discretionary authority to refuse a passenger is not unlimited.

Alternatively, it might be someone who didn't get a job at the CPD, settled for a lower-status and lower-paid job at the airport, and who has a significant chip on his shoulder as a result.

I agree that the individual concerned over-reacted, the clearly educated passenger was stating his case that he had every right to remain occupying that seat etc., however I do believe that this individual has a right to sue the airline, not necessarily his employer, but the airline.

It was a case of 'chain of command', first of all that the airline has a ridiculous rule that deadheading crew must travel in cattle class rather than by chartered executive jet or whatever, faced with such stupidity the ground staff decided that revenue pax would be offloaded in favour of deadheading crew, faced with refusal did they offer other pax financial incentives to offload before calling in law enforcement officers?

This individual had no right to treat the passenger the way he did but the airline put him on the spot "we want this guy off the plane and it is your job to do it".

what was wrong the skipper coming back into the cabin and asking and explaining to the pax nicely:
'sorry old chap we have an awful problem and need to use your seat for one of our crew, can you get off, we will look after you and get you home asap but we really need this seat''
with that approach the chances are the pax would have got off or even someone else volunteering

or do i now live in a twilight zone of aviation

It appears these aviation officers are required to attend and graduate from the Chicago Police Academy or the Cook County Sheriffs Training Academy, and to be sworn in as LEO. I'm not sure how this squares with the officer's claim that he was improperly trained. It's not like his employers picked him up in a Home Depot parking lot.

I stand corrected, thanks :ok:

That approach would definitely seem more reasonable than the one which was chosen