Non-Terrorist Awarded $400K In Settlement
by Aaron Margolis, January 15th, 2007 at 08:18am
So it turns out the guy is not a terrorist, but does that mean he should be awarded $400,000 by a Boston jury?
In what’s being hailed as a landmark post-9/11 verdict, a Boston jury has ordered American Airlines [AMR] to pay a computer consultant $400,000 for suspecting him of being a Middle Eastern terrorist.
“They thought they could walk into that courtroom and say, ‘Security! Security!’ and make themselves above the law. The jury said they couldn’t,” John Cerqueira, 39, born in Portugal and raised in Fall River, said yesterday from his home in Miami.
While other alleged victims of racial profiling have struck out-of-court deals, Boston attorney David Godkin said Cerqueira’s civil rights case is the first of its kind since Sept. 11, 2001, to reach trial.
Godkin posed the following question to jurors: “Imagine if our client had been a middle-aged blond woman. Would the same thing have happened?”
State police removed Cerqueira from Florida-bound Flight 2237 on Dec. 28, 2003, along with two Israeli men seated next to him in coach, because they were frightening the flight crew preparing for takeoff from Logan International Airport.
So this guy is involved in an incident with two other men, is removed from the plane, and gets $400,000? Let’s get real for a minute. Had a similar incident occurred in the air, and involving any three people, the plane would have been grounded. Without question. We read about it happening quite a bit.
What makes this incident so different, and why this ruling will be a huge detriment to our air travel safety? What happens when the next unruly passenger happens to be the one who tries to perpetrate a horrendous act of terrorism, but the flight attendants and cockpit crew are instructed to be complacent? This ruling is bad news, and could ultimately cost lives. We have seen the dreadful effects of complacency, and this ruling is a step backwards.
Sorry Mr. Cerqueira, it’s too bad you were inconvenienced, but that doesn’t make this ruling in your favor the correct one for the better good of the American public and our safety.
Entry Filed under: Terrorism
19 Comments
1. wave maker | January 15th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Well gee Aaron, that’s the jury system, innit? And it seems to me that you’re coming to a conclusion based upon very little knowledge (done quite a bit here). If you weren’t at the trial every day to hear all of the evidence the jury heard, you really don’t know what conclusion to draw, do you?
It’s hard for me to see how $400,000 is a just amount, and juries do some stupid things. Maybe American Airlines had a lawyer they didn’t like. Maybe one of the flight attendants was a horrible witness. We just don’t know. And one thing is pretty certain — a jury verdict in one case doesn’t spread like the flu.
2. Andy | January 15th, 2007 at 9:42 am
wave,
while your questions may be valid, that hardly means people are not entitled to give an opinion on the matter because they weren’t present for the trial.
So, seriously, cut the holier-than-thou routine…
3. Voodoo Daddy | January 15th, 2007 at 11:07 am
i think this sets a horrible precedent, and the concerns raised are valid. While he doesn’t focus on the enormity of the $400,000 lottery this non-terrorist just won, i would say that in of itself is cause for pause. $400,000 for being taken off a plane? Please. I’d like to see some discussion on that.
4. Mr. X | January 15th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
As usual, wave is way out to lunch. Please consider upping your meds, wave!
5. Hunter | January 15th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Other than being one of those ‘you’re not gonna believe this’ stories, I fail to see how this will spread like wild fire at all. It was one case and one jury. It’s not the Supreme Court or even superior court for that matter, so it’s not actual precedent.
If someone were TO deem it precedent, or use it as such, they would likely be laughed out of a court room. This IS Massachusetts afterall. Nobody really takes anything our courts do these days, you know, seriously.
So I wouldn’t hit the panic button and talk about the deservice it’ll likely never do to the American people.
6. fredct | January 15th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Doesn’t that depend on exactly why they were removed? What were the suspicious gestures? The only thing the article mentions is wishing each other a ‘happy new year’, and some kind of ’suspicious gestures’.
It really depends, if what happened was reasonable to cause suspicion, then it wouldn’t be an issue. If it wasn’t, then its discrimination. I’d like to hear the full story, but I doubt I’ll get it here.
7. Knightbrigade | January 15th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
“Godkin posed the following question to jurors: ‚ÄúImagine if our client had been a middle-aged blond woman. Would the same thing have happened?‚Äù”
If the 9/11 jackoffs were middle-aged blond women, you BET YOUR ASS the same thing would have happened.
Ahhh but wait, the terrorist were of middle east decent, so lets keep an eye on 7 feet blond Swedish guys.
And Miss X, just ask wave for a date and stop molesting him will ya!!?? Everyone can see the crush you have on him.
8. Jack Donahue | January 15th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I would say being falsely accused of a crime is one of the biggest problems in the American legal system. If you are innocent and you are accused of a crime, you need to have a lot of funds to pay for a good defense or you could end up in jail (regardless of whether you are guilty or not). Basically it boils down to if you are innocent and poor, you could be in big trouble. If you are aquitted, it’s not like the state or federal government will reimburse you for the lawyer. While everybody has the option to have a court appointed lawyer, there is no hiding that these lawyers have a history of being sub-par with their peers.
Thus, in this case, I think it’s fair.
9. Andy | January 15th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Jack, while I understand your point, I think you’re trying to apply a broad generalization to a specific situation. Also, yes people can be falsely accused, and that is why we have a trial by jury system. there is a difference between being randomly picked up and accused of a crime, and being involved in a incident (undeniably) but later being found innocent by a jury. if we set a precedent of making people liable for falsely accusing someone just because they are found innocent, then good luck getting witnesses to come forward or anything like that. its bad enough that police will turn a blind eye to criminal activity by minorities out of fear of being accused of racism.
10. wave maker | January 16th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Hey Andy relax — that’s what opinions are proffered for — to be debated. And it would seem the best way of having a meaningful and relevant discussion of an issue is to have the facts right — otherwise we start jumping to conclusions — several of which you have articulated above. See?
I do not have a swarthy complexion and I don’t fly that often — but if I did and I did, I sure wouldn’t want to be dragged off an airplane and grilled in custody for several hours because of the misfortune of being seated next to “two foreigners in coach.” I would surely feel as though I had been “hurt,” and it isn’t my lawyer’s job to discourage the jury from thinking I wasn’t hurt that bad.
(I wonder if he would have stuck out so much if he’d been in first class. He’d only have been next to one at most, and after they nattered to one another between the seats for a minute, he could have offered to switch with the other and then left them to be served free wine together.)
What is interesting here is that his award was for a violation of his civil rights, but his treatment was not because of his national origin (Portuguese), but the Isrealis who were with him (what happened to them, anyway??).
11. JK | January 16th, 2007 at 7:16 am
As usual, Hub Politics doesn’t do it’s research.
From the court papers “Plaintiff John D. Cerqueira will present evidence to show that, on December 28, 2003, defendant American Airlines (AA) discriminated against him in two separate incidents. First, AA caused Mr. Cerqueira to be removed from AA flight 2237, detained, and interrogated by the Massachusetts State Police. Second, AA refused to provide service to Mr. Cerqueira after he was released from questioning and cleared for further travel.”
The “racism” that is being punished in this case is not simply removing the individual from the flight for security reasons. The second act, not letting him fly once the state police cleared him is likely why he was awarded so much money. And American Airlines should have been punished for the second act. Removing an individual from the flight for questioning for security reasons should be considered a reasonable practice. However, what was their justification once the state police has cleared him for flying?
12. anthony | January 16th, 2007 at 10:24 am
I’m confused by the discussion about being falsely accused of a crime in relation to this civil case. From what I could gather from the little information available in the article, the plaintiff was never accused of a crime. He was questioned by law enforcement and let go. I obviously was not on the jury in this case, but I am fairly certain that in application of the law they could not have found it undeniable that the plaintiff was involved in some sort of incident that required his being taken off the plane, questioned and released and still have awarded him damages. That would not have been improper. They must have found that the preponderance of the evidence suggested that he was not involved in any incident and that he was removed and questioned based solely on his race, that his civil rights were violated, and thusly awarded him damages. The fact that this case is the first one to get to a jury post 9/11 makes it novel, but it is not a case of first impression generally. Other similar cases that pre-date 9/11 involving air travelers have been tried in favor of the plaintiff. No new precedent has been set by this case. As for people fearing getting involved, there definitely are some people who would choose not to get involved in a criminal investigation for fear of being sued later, but I don’t think this case will affect that phenomenon. Does the plaintiff in this case deserve 400,000.00? Personally, I don‚Äôt think so, but I think that topic belongs in a larger discussion about tort reform in general.
13. JohnJ | January 16th, 2007 at 10:26 am
The ruling was wrong period. If any is reported as Freighting a flight crew they should be removed without question. There is NO debate on that at all.
14. wave maker | January 16th, 2007 at 11:07 am
JK, nice try but what you’re quoting is obviously what the plaintiff’s LAWYER asserted that the evidence would show. What the jury found could have been entirely different — and the story suggests that AA offered him alternate travel accommodations and he declined.
What is the “racism,” JK? That they thought he was “with” the other two because he “looked” like them?
How far are you willing to go, JK, in giving him the benefit of the doubt and allowing him to stay on the plane? Are you willing to bet your life on it? The lives of everyone else on the plane?
15. Heidi B | January 16th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
First, the question was asked “if the person was blue eyed & blonde hair, would the same questions be asked” Answer: OFCOURSE NOT!! you idiot! Not all muslims are terrorists but SO FAR all the terrorists have been muslim. As an American Airlines Flight Attendant based in Boston, I totally support our Pilot AND will continue to act in a REASONABLE way! This ruling was RIDICULOUS. I CAN be told to be politically correct however for my safety and others around me, I will only be looking at middle eastern “looking” people between the ages of 18-49 - especially with British accents - SO THERE. Im not dying because of political correctess you can count on that!
16. JK | January 16th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
wave,
Sorry for any confusion in my post but you are correct that what I posted was from the plaintiff’s lawyer.
For the most part, I agree with you. (I put racism in quotes because I don’t believe profiling is racism). I am with you whole hartedly that law enforcement (or the air line in this case) has every right to remove the guy from the plane.
What my point was, and what I think was actually the driving force of the lawsuite, is that once the state police had interviewed and researched the man’s background, they cleared him to fly and AA still refused to let him on the plane. Meaning that the profiling that removed him from the plane was fine, but why didn’t AA let him fly once the state police cleared him to do so? Admittedly, this is all spectulation on my behalf, since I did not hear the evidence presented to the jury.
17. JK | January 16th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
wave,
One additional thing, this was the quote from the article from the plaintiff in the case “I do realize Sept. 11 weighs hard on our consciences and everyone is interested in better safe than sorry,‚Äù Cerqueira said, ‚Äúbut if they had just put me on another plane, none of this would have happened.‚Äù
18. Knightbrigade | January 17th, 2007 at 1:56 am
WOO HOO………..I’m flying with HEIDI B!!!!!
Now that’s what I’m talkin about!!!!
19. wave maker | January 17th, 2007 at 7:28 am
JK — we are entirely on the same page. Whatever the facts are, the analysis is consistent.
Heidi! You go girl!! Keep up the good work and don’t let ‘em bring you down. (BTW, Tim McVeigh and Ted Kozinsky weren’t muslims, but I still accept your premise.)
You statement about muslims/terrorists reminds me of a great quote from a bar owner I know. He proudly told me he does not serve Budweiser. When I asked him why, he said the following:
“Not all Budweiser drinkers are assholes, but all assholes drink Budweiser.”