Posted on 04/12/2006 1:08:39 PM PDT by iPod Shuffle
Woman wins $27.5 million Southwest suit
Associated Press
EL PASO — A jury awarded $27.5 million in damages to a woman of Iranian descent who alleged she was racially profiled when Southwest Airlines accused her of assaulting a flight attendant and interfering with a flight crew.
Samantha Carrington, of Santa Barbara, Calif., won in the civil case Friday after suing the Dallas-based carrier for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Carrington was arrested by federal authorities in 2003 after her Houston-to-Los Angeles flight made a scheduled stop in El Paso. Criminal charges were never filed.
According to court records, three flight attendants said Carrington, a naturalized citizen from Iran, became verbally abusive during the flight, grabbed the arm of one flight attendant and threatened to go to the cockpit if the captain was not summoned.
Carrington, 54, denied those allegations and said she was the one mistreated during the short flight. She said the flight attendants lied about her behavior.
"In the evidence it came out that one of the flight attendants stated that Ms. Carrington reminded her of a terrorist, and in our views she was the victim of profiling stereotypes and discrimination," her lawyer Enrique Moreno told the El Paso Times for Tuesday's edition.
In a sworn deposition Carrington, who teaches economics at California State University, Los Angeles, said since her arrest she has been the subject of increased scrutiny and security checks when she travels internationally.
Though Southwest Airlines has denied any wrongdoing, a few months after the incident the company did send Carrington an apology letter, offering her 20 round-trip tickets. The letter was signed by Colleen C. Barrett, president and former chief operating officer. Barrett said in a sworn affidavit that she didn't know anything about the case and didn't write the letter.
A Southwest spokeswoman said the decision will be appealed.
"We certainly don't agree with this particular verdict," spokeswoman Beth Harbin told the newspaper. "The verdict was not based on all the available facts because those facts were not presented to the jury for their consideration."
Madness! Madness!
But I notice that she sued in California - not Texas.
I suppose they could move disgruntled Middle Eastern people to first class and slip out to get them a cocktail as they "jump out of the plane without notice or provocation.."
.. it could also mean that the judge barred the introduction of certain evidence that SW wanted to present to the jury.
My first thought exactly! This is one of the many things that's destroying our civil society. Of course the tort shysters (John Edwards is a perfect example) will take their 40% and become rich and at the same time make our society more litigious than ever. It's also become a form of legal shake-down because many innocent defendants will pay damages just to avoid the agony of prolonged litigation, infinite time wasted, and bad publicity. Do you think it's an accident that our Congress consists mostly of attorneys and is an extension of the trial lawyer lobby? Shakespeare was right - "first kill all the lawyers!"
Nevermind - I misread it. Now I'm not sure where she sued.
She wasn't just harassed... she was arrested as well. No charges were filed, however.
I think I'd want more than 20 plane tickets for a false arrest.
$27.5 million. Now THAT'S some expensive airline baggage.
Sounds like something Liberace would wear....
OK, good point. So, I can see the sew-on backpack patches now:
"Go ahead, arrest me and lie about me to the press -- I need the $27 million!"
Americans have become the dog to kick for the rest of the world. When did we become such P***ys and gave up our Country.
You live such a sheltered life.
Here in the People's Democratic Republic of Illinois, I've been on 2 juries.
The first one was a criminal case that had to do with a young black man breaking into another black man's house. He was accused of burglary, breaking and entering.
The owner of the house and a cop testified against him.
The accused had no alibi, he just claimed he didn't so it.
After two hours of scintillating testimony (hee hee), the jurors opinions were as follows:
young, white woman says he's not guilty because she saw the home owner being taken out of handcuffs in the hallway outside the court room,
older white women say he's guilty because he's black,
young, black woman says he's not guilty because cops always lie (the cop was black),
with the exception of one white guy (he refused to participate), the rest of the men on the jury (black and white) decided he was not guilty because the cop and the homeowner testified that they didn't actually see the accused's face, and nothing was missing from the home.
We found him not guilty after getting the older white ladies to go along.
The second jury was for a civil suit.
A young white man had broadsided a white woman's van in a freezing rain storm, trapping her in a ditch on the side of the road until firemen could get there and free her.
She had to see a chiropractor for a year and a half afterwards, and her insurance wouldn't pay because she saw a chiropractor. We found out later her insurance had a lien against our decision but we weren't told this at trial.
After 4 hours of more scintillating testimony (!) involving her testimony and that of the officer who first arrived on the scene (the young man agreed with her account), the jurors opinions were as follows:
the 6 young white women agreed that the young man was not at fault because you can't always control your car and because she saw a chiropractor instead of a doctor, then they proceeded to decide how much money she should get,
the one young Mexican man said it was not the young man's fault but he didn't know why,
the other 5 white guys (of various ages, myself included) said it was the young man's fault for driving too fast for conditions.
The women and Mexican man finally relented so that we could find against the young man for a token $1000 amount, forcing a re-trial.
The judge actually came to the jury room after we rendered our decision and yelled at us for screwing up the case and forcing a re-trial.
So I always ask, wonder who was on the jury?
hopefully she will hold her breath waiting for the settlement
I suspect this was a federal case (I can't seem to find confirmation of that), and Texas' tort reform laws wouldn't have any bearing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.