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 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.



A&E, ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, CNN, DUCK DYNASTY, FACEBOOK, FIRST AMENDMENT, GENTLEMAN'S QUARTERLY, GLAAD, HOMOSEXUALITY, NBC NEWS, PHIL ROBERTSON, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, RED SCARE, SENATOR JOSEPH MCCARTHY, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISN’T FREE
In Bureaucracy, Business, Entertainment, Social commentary on December 19, 2013 at 1:10 amThere are several reasons to not watch “Duck Dynasty”:
These are perfectly legitimate reasons to switch channels when this A&E “reality series” comes on.
But there’s one reason that shouldn’t apply: Blacklisting Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, because he expressed his opinion during a Gentleman’s Quarterly (GQ) interview.
GQ itself best summed up the image and values of the Robertsons: “a family of squirrel-eating, Bible-thumping, catchphrase-spouting duck hunters.”
So when A&E signed them up in 2012, the network should have known what it was promoting–and that the words “politically correct” didn’t apply.
Thus, the network shouldn’t have been surprised when Robertson, asked during an interview for his views on homosexuality, frankly stated them.
At 67, he is an unabashed Christian fundamentalist and a proud member (along with the rest of his family) of the White’s Ferry Road Church of Christ.
Phil Robertson
“It seems like to me, a vagina–as a man–would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” said Robertson, a Louisiana native. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking. There’s more there. She’s got more to offer.
“I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical my nam. It’s just not logical.
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.
“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers–they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
The First Amendment to the Constitution declares, in part:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….”
Thus, the most important legislative body in the nation is strictly forbidden from interferring with the rights of Americans to express their opinions.
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers didn’t have the foresight to imagine wealthy conglomerates such as A&E usurping powers that were denied to Congress.
Thus, when the issue of GQ hit the newsstand–and the Internet–A&E quickly announced that it was indefinitely suspending Phil Robertson from appearing on the “Duck Dynasty” series.
“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty.
“His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”
The network stated that the rest of the family (who almost certainly share his views, but haven’t done so publicly) would remain on the program.
Of course, the homosexual/lesbian/transgender community were outraged by Robertson’s views–which were precisely those of an Old Testatment-quoting patriarch.
And they have every right to be upset. They have long been and continue to be targets of abuse–much of it violent. And no doubt they see Robertson’s views as justifying further such abuse aimed at them.
And they weren’t shy about expressing their views about Robertson–and his beliefs. According to a statement released by GLAAD (formerly Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation):
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.
“He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans–and Americans–who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.
“Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”
From a First Amendment perspective, so far, so good–two diametrically opposing opinions on a vital social issue. May the best argument win.
But according to A&E, there can be only one prevailing view on homosexuality–whatever view the network’s topmost officials decide is correct at any given moment.
This is the liberal version of the 1950s “Red Scare” reign of Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Anyone accused of being a “Communist,” a “Comsymp” or “fellow traveler” could suddenly find himself out of work.
This was especially so in the area of television–where simply being labeled “controversial” could earn you a pink slip.
Love him or loathe him, Robertson has never hidden his views from anyone.
A&E surely knew what it was getting when it signed him and his Louisiana family up for this “reality series” which brings in huge profits from its 14 million viewers.
Only when those profits are threatened by the public statement of views that A&E officials surely knew long ago has the network tried to distance itself from its ratings-winner.
Share this: