This should be an interesting lawsuit.
An Oregon family was flying coach-class on United Airlines with their 15-year-old autistic daughter, who is “picky” about food. The mother asked a flight attendant for a hot meal to pacify her daughter, but was told only first-class passengers could purchase hot meals, to which the mother replied, “Okay, fine, we’ll get to the point where she’s crying and then you’re going to want to help her.”
The flight attendant then provided the hot meal, but apparently also complained to the captain, who made an unscheduled landing at Salt Lake City and had police remove the family from the plane. Other passengers didn’t feel the family was disruptive, and one even is heard remarking on the video of the incident, “This is gonna be a lawsuit.” He was right about that; the family has hired an attorney and plans to file a discrimination lawsuit against the airline.
With a little searching, I found a website that gives advice to parents of autistic children about air travel here. The section about food says,
Food Fights
If you’re counting on the airline to provide a nutritious meal, or any meal at all, you’re probably in for a surprise, unless you’re in first class. The best way to feed your autistic child on a flight is to pack a full complement of foods you know he’ll eat, especially if he’ll only eat a few things. Eating provides your child with a familiar activity and helps pass the time.
The mother in this case did have food with her, but of course she can’t provide her daughter with hot food on the plane; only the airline can do that. And if the airline is able to do so, why not ask it to? That’s what she did — and the flight attendant said no. Now, here’s where things get a bit murky. Let’s look at this from several possible angles:
Scenario #1: The family makes no requests, and the daughter creates a disturbance during the flight because she isn’t given hot food, so the captain lands the plane and has the family removed from the flight. The family sues for discrimination, claiming they were kicked off the plane in violation of federal law requiring the airline to provide “reasonable accommodation” for their daughter’s disability. The airline’s lawyers will argue they never received a request for reasonable accommodation and didn’t know the child was disabled.
Scenario #2: The mother, knowing her daughter will act out if she becomes hungry and isn’t given hot food, asks the flight attendant for a hot meal, and offers to pay for it. The airline could provide it, but refuses because its policy is to provide hot meals only to first-class passengers. The mother says, “Okay, I understand, thank you anyway,” and tries to cajole her daughter to eat the cold carry-on food, but daughter gets upset and starts acting out. The captain lands the plane and has the family removed from the flight. The family sues for discrimination, claiming they were kicked off the plane in violation of federal law requiring the airline to provide “reasonable accommodation” for their daughter’s disability. The airline’s lawyers will argue they never received a request for reasonable accommodation and didn’t know the child was disabled.
Scenario #3: The mother, knowing her daughter will act out if she becomes hungry and isn’t given hot food, asks the flight attendant for a hot meal, and offers to pay for it. The airline could provide it, but refuses because its policy is to sell hot meals only to first-class passengers. The mother says, “I know that’s your policy, but the reason I’m asking is because my daughter is autistic, and I need to give her hot food to keep her from acting out, so I’m asking for this as a reasonable accommodation of my daughter’s disability.” The flight attendant then provides the hot meal, but complains to the captain, who lands the plan and has the family removed from the flight. The family sues for discrimination, claiming they were kicked off the plane as retaliation for asking for reasonable accommodation of their daughter’s disability. The airline’s lawyers probably will argue its actions were justified because the mother made a coercive threat to get her demands met.
Scenario #4: The mother, knowing her daughter will act out if she becomes hungry and isn’t given hot food, asks the flight attendant for a hot meal, and offers to pay for it. The airline could provide it, but refuses because its policy is to sell hot meals only to first-class passengers. The mother explains her daughter’s autism, and that she’s requesting the hot meal as a reasonable accommodation for her daughter’s disability, but the flight attendant responds, “I’m sorry, but that’s our policy, and I can’t change it.” The daughter then acts out, the captain lands the plane, and has the family removed from the flight because of the daughter’s behavior. The family sues for discrimination. Their lawyers will argue the family asked for, and was refused, reasonable accommodation in violation of federal law. The airline’s lawyers probably will argue that the airline has a right to enforce its policies, these policies are made known to the public, and if the family needed a hot meal for their daughter during the flight they should have purchased a first-class ticket for her.
Scenario #5: The mother, knowing her daughter will act out if she becomes hungry and isn’t given hot food, asks the flight attendant for a hot meal, and offers to pay for it. The airline could provide it, but refuses because its policy is the sell hot meals onto to first-class passengers. The mother explains her daughter’s autism, and says, “you’ll be sorry if you don’t give her a hot meal.” The flight attendant complies with the mother’s demand in order to avoid an in-flight disruption, but complains to the captain, who lands the plane and has the family removed from the flight. The family sues for discrimination. Their lawyers will argue that, while the family was provided with the reasonable accommodation they requested, the airline retaliated against them for requesting it. The airline’s lawyers probably will argue, “We didn’t remove them from the flight because of their request for, or their daughter’s need for, reasonable accommodation; the reasonable accommodation was provided. We removed them from the flight because of the mother’s bullying verbal behavior, which the flight crew deemed disruptive.”
This lawsuit pits the airline’s and other passengers’ interests in a safe and disruption-free flight against the child’s legal right under federal law to not be discriminated against because of her disability. Do airlines have a right to keep autistic children off flights because of their propensity for disruptive behavior? If not, what “reasonable accommodation” are they required to provide for such disabilities?
These are complicated questions that have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Courts decide such cases based on the specific facts of each case. In this instance, both sides have legitimate interests, and when those interests collide, the court likely will weigh the relative burdens on each party.
I’m a lawyer, but not a disabilities law expert, so I can’t provide a reliable answer here as to how this case will play out in the legal system. I can only make an educated guess. Here’s my reaction to the scenarios outlined above:
Scenarios 1 & 2: I don’t think the airline violated the law or incurred a legal liability where it wasn’t informed of the child’s disability and no request for reasonable accommodation was made.
Scenarios 3 & 4: I think the airline is in the wrong, and will be found to have violated the law, because it was informed of the child’s disability, a request for reasonable accommodation was made, the burden on the airline of accommodating the request was very slight or non-existent, but the airline refused anyway. This looks like a clear-cut case of refusing a reasonable accommodation.
Scenario 5: This is what actually happened, and is a bit stickier. The mother’s behavior is, in fact, arguably coercive and therefore disruptive in and of itself — “give me what I want, or you’ll be sorry.” She clearly could have presented her request for reasonable accommodation in a better fashion. But is that enough to tip the legal scales in favor of the airline? That’s probably going to depend on whether the captain landed the plane and had the family removed from the flight in retaliation for the mother’s behavior, or because he was concerned that her demanding and belligerent behavior might escalate if she remained on board for the remaining duration of the flight. Note the focus here is on the mother’s behavior, not the child’s behavior. The federal law does not require disabled persons to use “magic words” to communicate their requests for reasonable accommodation; they don’t have to say, “I’m a disabled person, and I’m requesting this as a matter of reasonable accommodation for my disability.” Any language that communicates that an accommodation is being requested for a disability is sufficient. But that’s not a license to use language that is threatening or abusive, and an airline is, I think, entitled to draw inferences from such language. My guess is this case is going to be a close call, and the reaction of other passengers may be the key to the outcome. My bet is the airline will lose this lawsuit, because the other passengers didn’t have a problem with the family, and didn’t think the airline crew handled the situation appropriately. When you have your witnesses saying, “That’s gonna be a lawsuit,” that’s a pretty strong clue that you’re in hot water, because they’re the citizens who make up juries and their reaction probably is a pretty good reflection of how a jury will react to what happened.