[January 07, 2015]

Thirteen Flight Attendants Fired for Refusing to Fly on International Flight after Discovering Threatening Words and Images Drawn on Aircraft File Whistleblower Complaint against United Airlines

Yesterday a group of thirteen veteran Flight Attendants filed a 26-page whistleblower complaint against United Airlines, charging the airline with unlawfully firing them in retaliation for refusing to fly on a Boeing (News - Alert) 747-400 passenger aircraft after learning of a credible and specific threat to the safety of the aircraft, its passengers and crew. The Flight Attendants are represented by the whistleblower and employment law firm of Katz, Marshall & Banks.

In the complaint filed with the United States Department of Labor, which adjudicates airline whistleblower complaints, the Flight Attendants allege that on July 14, 2014, while preparing to depart from San Francisco International Airport on a Hong Kong-bound flight, they became aware that someone had written threatening words and drawn menacing images in an oil slick from the auxiliary engine in the aircraft's tail cone. The writing consisted of the words "BYE BYE" in six-inch-high letters above two faces, one smiling and the other with a more troubling devilish expression. The Flight Attendants charge thatthey informed the airline that were uncomfortable flying unless United took steps to address this security threat, including deplaning 300-plus passengers and conducting a thorough security inspection of the aircraft to ensure that no explosive device had been planted in the plane.

In their complaint, the Flight Attendants allege that when United refused to take these security measures, which they believed the airline was required to do under Federal Aviation Administration rules, they refused to fly on the aircraft, concluding that doing so would potentially endanger the lives of all those on board. The Flight Attendants charge that initially United tried to withhold information from them about this clear threat, and when they learned of it and expressed their concerns about passenger safety and security, tried to bully them into flying. They further allege that when all thirteen veteran Flight Attendants assigned to the flight refused to accede to Company threats, United accused them of "insubordination" and fired them.

The Flight Attendants, who collectively possessed over 299 years of flight attendant experience and who each had an exemplary record of performance with the airline, allege that in the wake of the disappearance of Malaysian Flight 370 and a warning issued by TSA about consumer-electronic-device bombs just a week earlier, they had a heightened duty and legal responsibility to do whatever was necessary - including refusing to fly - to protect the safety and security of the passengers and crew on the flight.

According to Grace Lam, one of the terminated Flight Attendants, "given the gravity of the risks involved - the lives of passengers and crew alike - we were not willing to bow to United's pressure to ignore an unresolved security threat even though the company made clear that we risked losing our jobs. We have every confidence that the Department of Labor will conclude that our firings were unlawful and will make United give us our jobs back."

David J. Marshall, an attorney for the Flight Attendants, stated that "our clients did exactly what the flying public would expect from a group of highly experienced airline professionals." According to Mr. Marshall, a partner with Katz, Marshall & Banks, a whistleblower and employee rights law firm based in Washington, D.C., "our clients are entitled to legal protection for doing what was right. United needs to be told in no uncertain terms that ordering conscientious employees, who are the eyes and ears of the public in these situations, to ignore federal law because it is more profitable for the Airline to maintain scheduled flights will not be tolerated."

The whistleblower complaint was brought under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, which protects any air carrier employee from retaliation, including termination, for opposing violations of air-safety and air-security standards. According to Mr. Marshall, the case law is clear and unambiguous that an airline employee's reasonable refusal to staff an unsecured and potentially dangerous aircraft is protected under this law.

The Flight Attendants seek reinstatement, back-pay, and compensatory damages.

[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]