Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
A very important Supreme Court ruling >

A very important Supreme Court ruling

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

A very important Supreme Court ruling

Old 01-27-2014, 04:19 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Default A very important Supreme Court ruling

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ruling that airlines have broad immunity from lawsuits under a post-9/11 security law, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a $1.4 million defamation judgment awarded to a pilot who was reported by his employer as mentally unstable and potentially armed.

The court was unanimous in holding that a law aimed at encouraging reports of possible security threats to the Transportation Security Administration shields airlines from defamation claims when the reports are substantially true.

"Congress wanted to ensure that air carriers and their employees would not hesitate to provide the TSA with information it needed," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court. Airlines may be held liable only for recklessly false reports, she said.

Applying that reasoning to the case of veteran pilot William Hoeper, the justices voted 6-3 to overturn a Colorado jury's verdict against Air Wisconsin, Hoeper's former employer.

The case stems from Hoeper's final, failed attempt to win airline approval to fly a new aircraft. The session ended with an angry exchange between Hoeper and another employee at a Virginia training facility.

Later that day, Hoeper was a passenger on a United Airlines flight home to Denver that was ordered to return to its gate after Air Wisconsin called TSA with its report of Hoeper as a potential threat.

He was removed from the plane by armed police officers and asked about his gun — properly locked up at home — while his luggage was emptied on the jet bridge.

TSA eventually determined Hoeper was not a threat, but he said he was so embarrassed by the incident that he took a later flight rather than re-board the delayed plane that was still sitting at the gate.

Sotomayor said the airline was basically correct when it reported that Hoeper "may be armed" because he had earlier been certified as a federal flight deck officer who was authorized to carry a gun while on the job to protect passengers and crew. Hoeper was not supposed to carry the weapon when he was not working or in training, and he had appropriately left it home.

She also said that concerns about his mental stability were more or less justified by the anger he showed at the training facility.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas, said the high court should have sent the case back to Colorado courts, possibly for a new trial.

"In short, a jury could find that Hoeper did nothing more than engage in a brief, run-of-the-mill, and arguably justified display of anger that included raising his voice and swearing, but that did not cause anyone, including the person on the receiving end of the outburst, to view him as either irrational or a potential source of violence," Scalia said.


The case is Air Wisconsin v. Hoeper, 12-315.
boxer6 is offline  
Old 01-27-2014, 07:30 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 190
Default

So some RJ puke went postal after a busted check ride. Why is this even news in the MAJORS section?
toomanyrjs is offline  
Old 01-27-2014, 07:51 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 153
Default

Originally Posted by toomanyrjs View Post
So some RJ puke went postal after a busted check ride. Why is this even news in the MAJORS section?
Because it affects the almighty too!
P56C is offline  
Old 01-27-2014, 07:54 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 320
Posts: 709
Default

Originally Posted by toomanyrjs View Post
So some RJ puke went postal after a busted check ride. Why is this even news in the MAJORS section?
Is that really what you think of us? RJ Pukes
tom14cat14 is offline  
Old 01-27-2014, 07:58 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hawker Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: Toilet warmer.
Posts: 337
Default

Originally Posted by toomanyrjs View Post
So some RJ puke went postal after a busted check ride. Why is this even news in the MAJORS section?
Ouch!!!!!!
Hawker Driver is offline  
Old 01-27-2014, 08:23 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
WHACKMASTER's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,542
Default

Originally Posted by tom14cat14 View Post
Is that really what you think of us? RJ Pukes
I think his username will answer that for ya. I'll bet he's a peach!
WHACKMASTER is offline  
Old 01-27-2014, 09:00 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 320
Posts: 709
Default

Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER View Post
I think his username will answer that for ya. I'll bet he's a peach!
I agree that there are too many RJ's. However there a big difference in saying too many RJ's and calling the pilots of those RJ's pukes. Of course this is only the internet so he can say what he wants. I just hope he does not have that attitude in real life. To each their own.
tom14cat14 is offline  
Old 01-27-2014, 09:04 PM
  #8  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Ok, enough about RJs. On topic... What does this mean?
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 01-27-2014, 09:06 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Rolf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 656
Default

Same reason we get drug tested without reasonable cause and the clowns in Congress (who can do more harm than we ever could) aren't. The judiciary finds this reasonable.
Rolf is offline  
Old 01-27-2014, 09:36 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Default

...Wow.... I really can't believe some of these replies here. Then again, it explains much about our world today.

Please RE-READ the whole article. Below are excerpts that should catch your eye. Do you really need further explanation as to the potential ramifications?


"Airlines may be held liable only for recklessly false reports, she said
.
.
.
She also said that concerns about his mental stability were more or less justified by the anger he showed at the training facility."
boxer6 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Ellen
Major
4
04-27-2007 10:56 PM
vagabond
Hangar Talk
3
03-01-2007 10:20 PM
IPAMD11FO
Cargo
53
02-12-2007 08:40 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices