Flying While Muslim

In their lawsuit, the Six Imams, who are Muslim and whose backgrounds range from Arab to Albanian, allege that U.S. Airways, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), and various agents and employees of U.S. Airways, MAC and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) intentionally discriminated against them solely on the basis of their race, religion, and/or national origin. While U.S. Airways is being sued on grounds that it intentionally, willfully and/or recklessly discriminated against the Imams because of their practice of their Muslim faith, the Metropolitan Airports Commission ("Commission") and the FBI agent, state actors, are being sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they and/or their agents violated the constitutional rights of the Imams.

1. The Facts of the CASE

• On November 20, 2006, six Muslim religious leaders (imams) boarded a US Airways flight in Minneapolis, MN. Before boarding four of the Imams prayed in the airport terminal. All six then boarded the plane and sat in their pre-assigned seats. One of the six imams changed seats because he was blind and needed assistance. Two of the imams asked for seatbelt extensions for their comfort.
• Soon after boarding, another passenger alerted U.S. Airways flight crew via a hand-written note that the imams were observed "praying" at the terminal prior to boarding the flight.
• The imams were removed from the flight and interrogated for several hours by various law enforcement and federal agents.
  • They were interrogated by both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service.
  • They were asked about their political views; how they felt about President Bush and Saddam Hussein.
  • After questioning was completed, the imams were informed by the FBI and the Secret Service that they did not pose any security threat and were told that they were free to leave.
• After the Six Imams were cleared of any wrongdoing, U.S. Airways refused to provide service to them.
• On March 12, 2007, civil rights attorneys Omar T. Mohammedi and Frederick J.

Goetz filed suit against U.S. Airways, Minnesota's Metropolitan Airports Commission  and a number for their employees,  alleging that their civil rights were violated.  An FBI agent was later added as a defendant to the lawsuit.

• In the course of the litigation, several facts have come to light which demonstrate that both the Airport Police Department and US Airways arrested the Imams and denied them service because of their religion and ethnicity.
  • First, the entire impetus for the deplaning and arrest of the Imams was the hand-written note from a passenger stating that the Imams were praying prior to boarding the plane.
  • The Airport Police Department acted upon the information provided by US Airways instead of conducting their own independent investigation to determine whether probable cause existed.
  • The Police Department’s representative admitted that the Six Imams were arrested due to their political views.

2. Legal/historical explanation

There are four entities represented as defendants in this litigation: The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), U.S. Airways, the Airport Police Department, and the FBI. MAC violated the Imams’ 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, their 6th Amendment right to attorney and their 14th Amendment right to Equal Protection when they acted in concert with U.S. Airways to unlawfully detain the Six Imams without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

MAC is also being sued for its failure to train, supervise, and discipline its employees on matters of discrimination relating to awareness of the basic tenets of Islam.

The six imams specifically allege that the defendants grossly violated their constitutional and statutory rights under:

1. The United States Constitution
   a. 4th Amend. prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures
   b. 6th Amend. right to an attorney
   c. 14th Amend. right to equal protection under the laws
2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d)
3. 42 U.S.C. 1981
   a. Deprived of their right to make & enforce contracts (plane ticket)
4. 42 U.S.C § 1983
   a. Failure to train, supervisor and discipline MAC’s officers and U.S. Airways’ employees and agents
5. Constitution of the State of Minnesota
6. Minnesota Human Rights Act
   a. Minn. Stat. 363A.11 – discrimination in public accommodations
   b. Minn. Stat. 363A.17 – discrimination in business service
7. Minn. Stat. 13.355 State’s Breach of Disclosure of Private Data
   a. Metropolitan Airports Commission disseminated a police report with Imam Shahin’s social security on it
8. Air Carrier Access Act (49 U.S.C. § 41705)
   a. Discriminating against Imam Sadeddin on the basis of his disability

The Six Imams claim that as a result of the all the Defendants’ willful conduct they have been degraded, humiliated, and maligned by the media. Additionally, the Imams suffer from anxiety and mental stress due to the toll these events have exacted upon them including, inter alia, Imam Sadeddin’s experience as a blind man forced off of the plane unassisted and Imam Shahin’s fear and anxiety over the consequences of having his social security number disseminated on the internet.

In addition to their constitutional claims, the are also alleging the follow state tort claims:

1. False Arrest by (U.S. Airways for summoning Metropolitan Airport Police)
2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
3. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
4. Defamation (U.S. Airways)
5. Negligence
6. Conspiracy to Discriminate (U.S. Airways)
7. Invasion of Privacy (Metropolitan Airports Commission)

1. Procedural timeline

1. November 20, 2006—Date of the incident
2. March 12, 2007—Lawsuit is filed
3. US Airways filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In part, US Airways argued that they are not liable under the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) because the FAA states that a carrier may refuse to transport a passenger if it decides that the passenger is inimical to safety.
4. November 20, 2007-- Judge Ann Montgomery of the United States District Court of Minnesota issued a 41-page opinion granting the six Imams their first victory. Judge Montgomery found in the Six Imams’ favor and dismissed US Airways Motion for summary Judgment.
5. The Defendants filed various motions to try to remove themselves from the lawsuit. The motions relied heavily on the newly passed legislation enacted by Congress in response to this case—6 U.S.C. § 1104—which seemingly extended a broad immunity to law enforcement officers responding to information of suspicious activity.
6. July 24, 2009, Judge Ann Montgomery issued a written opinion on the numerous motions filed by the defendants in Numbers 5 and 6. However, the court’s opinion rejected the curtailment of civil liberties of minorities and upheld the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution for all. In the end Judge Montgomery denied the defendant officers statutory immunity, qualified immunity and stated, in no unclear terms, that no reasonable officer could conclude that probable cause existed for an arrest.

4. Attachments to key court filings:
   1. Third Amended Complaint , filed 1214/2007
   2. First set of motions by defendants:
      1. US Airways’s Motion for Summary Judgment
   3. Judge’s ruling denying the Motion for summary judgment .
   4. Second set of motions by defendants:
      1. Defendant FBI agent Michael Cannizzaro’s Motion to Dismiss.
      2. The MAC Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment .
   5. Plaintiff’s motion in opposition to Defendant’s Motions.
   6. Most recent ruling, decided July 24, 2009, denying the above two motions.