Last November, six imams were removed from a US Airways flight after passengers and flight crew reported their suspicious behaviors. They boarded the aircraft, without objection, after three of the six prayed loudly in the gate area. Yet, while boarding and the plane waiting to push back from the gate, passengers became alarmed when some of the imams exchanged seats, occupied seats to which they were not assigned, asked for seatbelt extenders they seemed not to need, and spoke disparagingly of US foreign policy in Iraq. The imams were questioned and released but US Airways denied them further service. The incident earned the six the moniker The Flying Imams. In March, they sued US Airways, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the yet to be named ‘John Doe’ passengers who reported their behaviors. Yesterday, the Washington Times reported:
US Airways is asking a court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a group of Muslim imams, saying the airline followed government guidelines when it removed the men from a flight because of suspicious behavior.
The response to the lawsuit, filed March 12 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, says the airline “is required to adhere to the main points of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Common Strategy regarding security threats in the aviation context.”
The strategy advises flight crew members to be “alert for odd or suspicious behavior during all interactions with passengers in the gate area, during the boarding process and during routine flight duties and passenger interactions,” the response to the lawsuit states.
“Flight crewmembers are required to mentally assess each passenger’s behavior and the potential for threat. Moreover, the common strategy notes that this is a subjective analysis, and recognizes that there is no key factor that applies in every situation,” it states.
“Notably, the common strategy advises flight crews to “Presume the worst,” and “Be suspicious about any passenger disturbance,” the response states.
The imams’ lawsuit also names the Metropolitan Airports Commission and unidentified John Does as defendants. Their claims include false arrest, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, failure to train, conspiracy to discriminate and negligence.