A "dead stare," a disputed lunge, and a federal law that erased a jury's multimillion-dollar award
A jury gave a passenger $7.2 million after he was cuffed on a Delta Air Lines flight. A federal appeals court just took it all back.
The Ninth Circuit on September 23 ruled Delta was immune under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) because its crew did what the law expects - flagged a concern to law enforcement and let the agent handle it.
The story starts on a May 2015 flight from Atlanta to Salt Lake City. The passenger, who has HIV and other medical conditions, was frequently out of his seat - using the bathroom repeatedly due to medication side effects, walking the aisles, peering into first class, and photographing two flight attendants he intended to complain about.
Other passengers noticed. An off-duty pilot from another airline described an expressionless "dead stare." A woman nearby testified it "felt like he was working up some kind of a plan."
The lead flight attendant collected the complaints and called the captain. A background check came back clean. But with 45 minutes to landing, the crew decided to ask the passenger to stay in his seat.
That did not go smoothly. The flight attendant said he screamed, lunged, and backed her against a wall. The passenger said he simply asked to use the restroom.
She called on a federal agent on board, who took control and placed the passenger in flex cuffs for the rest of the flight.
He sued Delta under the Montreal Convention - the international treaty governing airline liability - for wrist injuries, neck and shoulder pain, depression, and PTSD. A jury awarded $7.2 million. The trial court threw out the verdict, then ruled Delta immune under the ATSA.
On appeal, the question was whether immunity covers only the act of reporting or everything that flows from it. The Ninth Circuit said both. The statute protects airlines when they disclose "any suspicious transaction" related to passenger safety, and the court held the shield extends through the consequences, not just the report.
A dissenting judge argued the jury's verdict proved reasonable people could disagree on whether the passenger acted suspiciously - pointing to flight attendant testimony that they did not consider him a threat, his medical conditions, his belief he was racially profiled, and his acquittal at a separate criminal trial.
For HR teams in aviation, the practical signal is clear: when crew flag concerns in good faith, immunity now covers the fallout, not just the flag.
