Nektalov v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, Dist. Court, ED New York 2024
United States District Court, Eastern District, New York
Facts
On February 4, 2021, plaintiffs were passengers on a JetBlue flight from Aruba to John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”). Compl. ¶ 11. Plaintiffs, who “are [O]rthodox Jews,” were dressed according to the customs of their religious community: Nektalov wore a long beard and a yarmulke under a fedora, and Yushanayev wore a head covering and “dressed modestly.” Compl. ¶ 12. During their trip, plaintiffs also occasionally spoke in Hebrew. Compl. ¶ 12.
Upon boarding the plane, plaintiffs allege that two flight attendants “were giving [them] disdainful and dirty looks . . . for quite some time.” Compl. ¶ 12. After initially preparing to take off, the plane taxied back to the gate. Compl. ¶ 12. When Yushanayev asked one of the flight attendants why the plane was returning, she was allegedly informed, “oh, your [required protective] mask slipped off your nose.” Compl. ¶ 12. The plane arrived at the gate, at which point a separate JetBlue employee informed plaintiffs that Yushanayev was being removed from the plane for failure to wear a mask. Compl. ¶ 12. A father and daughter, who were intermittently speaking Russian and identified themselves as Jewish, were also told to deplane. Compl. ¶ 12. Plaintiffs allege that the JetBlue employee “erroneously lumped us all together as disruptive Jews.” Compl. ¶ 12.
A month later, plaintiffs each received a letter from JetBlue that informed plaintiffs that they were “no longer welcome as a customer aboard JetBlue.” Compl. ¶ 33.
Issue(s)
No issues drafted yet for this case.Discussion
that airlines should not be permitted to impinge on civil rights with impunity, avoiding liability for discrimination by the application of the Montreal Convention. Opp’n at 9. However, this precise argument was already rejected in King, 284 F.3d at 362, and discrimination claims are regularly preempted due to the conventions’ authority over such claims. See, e.g., Berlin v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 436 F. Supp. 3d 550, 561 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (holding that amendment was futile for plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim because it was preempted by the Montreal Convention); Alam v. Am. Airlines Grp., Inc., 16-cv-00251, 2017 WL 1048073, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2017) (finding federal and state discrimination claims were preempted by Montreal Convention); Dogbe v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 2d 261, 274-75 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding Section 1983 claims preempted by the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions).
Further, plaintiffs’ policy argument is unavailing because they failed to bring a timely claim against the appropriate parties. Had plaintiffs raised a claim under the Montreal Convention within the allotted time frame against JetBlue employees, Article 30(3) might have provided an avenue forward for their intentional claims. See, Convention, arts. 30, 35. That is not the case here. Moreover, the convention’s preemptive effect, including as applied to civil rights claims, is the result of international negotiations and a system that favors uniformity. See Convention, prmbl.; Tseng, 525 U.S. at 169-70. Plaintiffs’ concerns of any broader consequences that preemption has on civil rights claims is a matter of international relations and, to the extent it can be addressed by the judiciary, is governed by the controlling precedent noted above.
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Montreal Convention and are dismissed.
