Lawsuit Implies 'John Doe' Witnesses Should Be Added To Litigation

Several members of the legal community are concerned a lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams who were taken off a US Airways flight last fall, after passengers complained of their behavior, could prevent others from stepping forward if they view behavior they consider suspicious.

As ANN reported last month, the lawsuit demands unspecified damages from US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. But their suit includes other defendants, as yet unnamed. These people, unaffiliated with the airline industry or government, are among the imams' most vulnerable targets.

The most alarming aspect of the imams' suit is buried, several paragraphs down. It describes "John Doe" defendants whose identity the imams' attorneys are still investigating. It reads: "Defendants 'John Does' were passengers ... who contacted US Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of Plaintiffs' performing their prayer at the airport terminal," according to media reports.

Later the suit adds: "Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants'] liability ... at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same."

In plain English, the imams plan to sue the "John Does," too.

Who are these John Does? According to the complaint they are described as "an older couple who was sitting [near one of the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch" as they prayed. "The gentleman ('John Doe') in the couple ... picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray," then "moved to a corner" and "kept talking into his cellular phone."

In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple will be brought into court soon and face the prospect of paying huge legal bills for what they thought was the right thing to do. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.

These "John Does" are called "first responders" against terrorism. But the imams' suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants in civil law suits.

"When you drive up the road towards the airport, there's a big road sign that says, 'Report suspicious behavior,'" said Gerry Nolting, a Minneapolis lawyer.

"There's no disclaimer that adds, 'But beware if you do that, you might get sued.'"

As ANN reported last fall, six Muslim men were removed from an US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix. They reportedly were returning from an Islamic cleric's conference.

Flight 300 was still at the gate when the men were asked to step off the plane to speak with officials. Passengers said the men had been "praying loudly in the gate area. Some were heard to be making statements against the US involvement in Iraq," said Pat Hogan, spokesman for the airport, to Bloomberg.

When the men boarded the plane, they also reportedly demanded to change seats and asked for safety-belt extensions, which they then put under their seats.

Several of the men repeatedly said "Allah" as they boarded, Hogan said, and one was overheard saying he would "go to whatever measures necessary to obey all that is set out in the Koran."

All six imams -- or prayer leaders -- were questioned by the Secret Service, FBI and US Marshal's Office. They were later released.

Ellen Howe, a spokesperson for the TSA, would not comment specifically on the lawsuit, but she did say the agency counts on the flying public to aid them in doing their job.

FMI: www.usairways.com, www.cair-net.org