US Airways, MSP Want Jury Trial For Imams Lawsuit | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

AMA Drone Report

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday

Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne-Unmanned w/AUVSI

Airborne On ANN

AMA 08.17.17

Airborne 08.14.17

Airborne 08.15.17

Airborne 08.16.17

Airborne 08.17.17

Airborne 08.18.17

Airborne-Unmanned 08.15.17

Airborne-YouTube

AMA 08.17.17

Airborne 08.14.17

Airborne 08.15.17

Airborne 08.16.17

Airborne 08.17.17

Airborne 08.18.17

Airborne-Unmanned 08.15.17

NEW!!! 2017 AirVenture Innovation Preview -- YouTube Presentation / Vimeo Presentation

Sat, Jan 05, 2008

US Airways, MSP Want Jury Trial For Imams Lawsuit

Say Passengers Who Spoke Up Are Protected From Litigation

Asserting the travelers, flight crew members, and law enforcement officers who removed six Muslim imams from a November 2006 flight were acting in the best interests of national security, officials with US Airways and Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport want a jury trial in the civil rights lawsuit brought forth by the imams.

As ANN reported, the six Muslim imams, or scholars, were removed from a US Airways flight to Phoenix after passengers and crewmembers expressed concern over what they called the men's suspicious behavior -- which allegedly included asking for seatbelt extensions, although the men didn't need them, and failure to take their assigned seats.

The six men, who were returning home from an Islamic clerics conference, also criticized the war in Iraq and President Bush, and spoke about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden while in the terminal and onboard the plane, according to passenger complaints.

The Washington Times reports the airline and the Minneapolis Airports Commission also want immunity for those who stood up, and demanded the imams be removed from the flight -- citing a "John Doe" law passed by Congress last year, that protects those who report persons acting suspiciously to authorities.

A subsequent discrimination lawsuit, filed last year by the six men, was amended December 14 to include the six airport police officers who responded to the gate as defendants.

"We believe the police officers acted appropriately and that it is important that airports across the nation be able to take action when there is a reasonable belief that travelers could be threatened," said Minneapolis Airports Commission spokesman Patrick Hogan. "In this case, there were travelers and flight crew members who raised concerns, and we worked with federal authorities who interviewed the imams.

"We believe the process worked as it should to protect the traveling public," Hogan added.

In its response to the amended suit, US Airways rebutted the over 200 complaints brought forth by the Muslims against the airline, and denied "that it engaged in any unlawful discrimination or violated any federal or state law."

The carrier also demanded the imams produce "strict proof" on 97 of those claims before a jury -- and stood behind the captain on the flight, John Wood, who asked for the imams to be removed from his plane. US Airways said Wood, who acted on information provided by the cabin crew, suspected the imams "may have posed a risk to the security of the flight," and the "decision to deny transportation was based upon the legitimate, non-discriminatory business purpose of ensuring flight safety," the airline said.

The imams assert they were placed under arrest -- which they "did not consent to" -- saying the police officers' "acts and conducts were solely motivated by their intent to discriminate against [the imams] based on their race, color, religion, ethnicity."

US District Judge Ann Montgomery has not ruled whether she will hear the case with a jury present. She denied motions to dismiss the suit in November.

FMI: www.usairways.com, www.mnd.uscourts.gov/Judges/montgomery.htm

Advertisement

More News

RFP: ANN Seeking New Site/Facility For Major Studio Upgrade

It's Official: Aggressive Upgrades For New Airborne Programs WILL Require New Digs It's been in development for years, but we're getting to a point where we think we can pull off s>[...]

Airborne-Unmanned 08.15.17: Reno Drone Races, DoD CrackDown, Blue Angels v UAV?

Also: Kansas DOT-AirMap, CIRRUAS Drone Program, Daytona Beach PD UAS, Virginia UAS SAR The Reno Air Racing Association has signed an agreement with the MultiGP Drone Racing League >[...]

AMA Drone Report 08.17.17: MULTI-GP Int'l Open, Drone v Chicago, Reno Drone Race

Also: Yuneec Extended Service Plan, UAV on A/C Carrier, Blue Angels Incident, Drone Operator Safety Act MultiGP’s 2017 MultiGP International Open, conducted on the grounds of>[...]

Airborne 08.18.17: NBAA v KSMO, Sully Attacked, DB Cooper Update

Also: New NASA Admin?, Anti-Aviation Hypocrites, Airberlin, Sky Hopper, Drone v Carrier, Jet Aviation, Airman Retires The NBAA joined five other stakeholders to file a brief with t>[...]

Airborne 08.17.17: GA Sales Report, Google Lunar XPRIZE, ATC Privatization

Also: Gustave Whitehead, AirVenture Innovation Preview, Learjet 75, HondaJet, ALEA, Honeywell, F-5N GAMA has published second quarter GA airplane shipment and billings data. The ge>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2017 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC