So you’ve decided to sue the airline you believe wronged you.
One option is to do so in small claims court.
A plus is you don’t need an attorney. In fact, you’re barred from bringing in an attorney. You represent yourself, which means you don’t have to pay an attorney–either up-front or at the end of the case.
Another plus: It will cost you far less to represent yourself than it will cost the airline to send a representative.
If you file in California and the airline is headquartered in New York, it will be expensive for them to send a rep to attend the proceedings. If the airline fails to send someone as its representative–which is highly unlikely–it loses by default.
A minus is that you may not be the confrontational type. You may also feel intimidated by the legal process–and afraid of looking like an idiot if you lose.
Another minus is that each state sets a different amount you can win in damages.
To learn about the rules applying to small claims courts in your state, consult the following link:
Click here: 50 State Overview of Small Claims Rules | Nolo.com.
A second option is to take your case to civil court.
A plus is that the dollar-amount you can obtain at this level is far higher than in small-claims court.
A minus is that you’ll definitely want to retain an attorney.
True, you can legally represent yourself. But aviation law is complex. The airline will definitely have an attorney, so if you don’t, you’re bringing a knife to a gunfight.
If you can find an attorney willing to represent you on a contingency fee basis, you don’t have to pay him unless you win. His fee will then come out of your settlement amount.
Another minus: If you can’t find an attorney willing to take your case on this basis, you’ll have to pay him by the hour, after first putting up a retainer fee, which can be quite large.
A third minus is that the courts are clogged with cases, and it can take months or even years before yours will be heard.
And remember: The vast majority of cases–civil and criminal–are settled outside of court. In civil cases especially, judges strongly urge both sides to reach a compromise rather than duke it out in court.
And both sides are usually willing to do this, since there’s no telling how a jury might rule.
Finally, there’s the option of filing a class-action lawsuit.
A plus to this is that you’re not alone in your charge against the airline. Other passengers who have been similarly wronged are seeking damages, and so the spotlight is not on any one plaintiff.
A minus is that such cases are extremely complex and must be handled by experienced attorneys.
Typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants, and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. Many class actions are filed initially in state court. The defendant will frequently try to remove the case to federal court.
Another minus: If your side prevails, the amount of money each plaintiff receives will be far smaller than if the award were to be divided between a single plaintiff and his attorney(s).
Finally, even if you win, you can be certain the airline will appeal the verdict. Such appeals can go on for literally years.
On a more far-reaching basis, you can demand that your Congressional representatives support passenger rights through legislation.
Protections are especially needed when a single airline official–such as a steward–kicks a passenger off an airplane for reasons that have nothing to do with security.
Examples:
- Two women kissing;
- A steward demanding whether a woman is wearing underwear;
- Another steward taking offense at a passenger’s request for help.)
During the administration of President George H.W. Bush, Congress overrode only one of his 44 vetoes. In that case, Congress put a cap on the rates cable TV companies could charge.
They did so because their constituents had made clear their rage about high-priced cable fees.
Members of the Senate and House of Representatives will respond to constituent demands:
- If enough voters make their specific demands known; and
- If those voters make clear that ignoring their demands will guarantee defeat at the next election.
There are consumer rights organizations now pressing for vitally-needed passenger protections. These organizations need support–both in terms of members and money.
Only then can they counter the legalized bribes (known as “campaign contributions) the airlines offer to members of Congress.
An example is Flyers Rights, which can be reached at: FlyersRights.ORG – Largest Non-Profit Airline Consumer Organization.
Above all, remember: Airlines are run by corporations.
Their foremost concern is not your comfort or even safety as a passenger. It’s with further enriching their key executives.
You must be willing to stand up for your own rights–because the airline couldn’t care less about them.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
2014 MIDTERM ELECTIONS, ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, RACIAL PROFILING, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
AN ALTERNATIVE TO OBAMA AMNESTY
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on November 25, 2014 at 12:01 amRepublicans are furious that President Barack Obama has decided to grant what they consider unconditional amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living within the United States.
But they don’t agree about what to offer as a counter-proposal.
Here is one suggestion.
If Americans decide they truly want to control access to their own borders, there is a realistic way to accomplish this.
“Undocumented immigrant”–illegal alien–entering the United States
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris–now California’s Attorney General–created a secret program called Back on Track. Its purpose: To provide training for jobs that illegal aliens cannot legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Indicting such officials would be comparable to the way President Andrew Jackson dealt with the threat South Carolinians once made to “nullify” any Federal laws they didn’t like.
Jackson quashed that threat by making one of his own: To lead an army into that State and purge all who dared defy the laws of the Federal Government.
(4) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(5) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least twenty years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(6) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(7) The United States Government–from the President on down–should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should we.
(8) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language: English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language–Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.
(9) Those who are not legal citizens of the United States should not be allowed to vote in its elections.
In Mexico, those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in the country’s elections.
The Mexican Government doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws.
The United States Government should not consider itself racist for insisting on the right to do the same.
(10) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
Share this: