1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

7 DON EDWARD WILLIAMS, ) 

) 

) 

) 

8 Complainant, 

9 v. ) Docket DOT-OST-2011-0149 

) 

10 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., ) 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Respondent. ~ COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR 

) LEAVE TO RESPOND TO THE 

~ UNAUTHORIZED REPLY OF 

~ SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. 

) AND REQUEST FOR 

~ EXPEDITION OF PROCEEDINGS 

) 

) 

~ Formal Third-Party Complaint 

) Filed on August 9, 2011 ----------------------~ 

Communications with respect to this matter should be sent to: 

Pau1a D. Pearlman (SBN 109038) 

Paula.Pearlman@lls.edu 

Shawna L. Parks (SBN 208301) 

Shawna.Parks@lls.edu 

Surisa E. Rivers (SBN 250868) 

Surisa.Rivers@lls.edu 

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 

800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Tel: (213) 736-1496; Fax: (213) 736-1428 

Attorneys for COMPLAINANT 

- I -

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 I. COMPLAINANT REQUESTS LEAVE TO FILE THIS RESPONSE TO THE 

2 UNAUTHORIZED REPLY OF SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. 

3 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 302.6(c)(2), Mr. Williams, the Complainant, respectfully 

4 requests the Department of Transportation ("DOT") to grant leave to file this response to the 

5 unauthorized Reply filed by Southwest Airlines Co. ("Southwest"), dated November 21, 

6 2011. 1 Mr. Williams objects to Southwest's Reply as an unauthorized responsive document 

7 because "[ e ]xcept as otherwise provided, a reply to an answer, a reply to a reply, or any 

8 further responsive document is not authorized." 14 C.F.R. § 302.6(b). 

9 Furthermore, Southwest failed to provide adequate good cause as required by 14 

10 C.F.R. § 302.6(c)(2). Southwest's unauthorized Reply states, "[g]ood cause exists ... to 

11 respond to erroneous statements, and will provide the Department with a more complete and 

12 accurate record upon which to base its decision." Southwest's Reply, p. 2. 

13 In contrast, Southwest's unauthorized Reply declined to present any concrete facts 

14 that came to light that it did not have access to before. Instead, Southwest chose to make 

15 false assertions about the DOT procedural rules and dubious allegations against Mr. Williams 

16 without proper justification or evidence. 

17 Accordingly, "[w]here unauthorized responsive documents are not permitted, all 

18 new matter contained in an answer ... shall be deemed controverted." 14 C.F.R. § 

19 302.6(c)(3) (emphasis added). As a result, the DOT should deny both Southwest's request 

20 for leave, and the credibility of Southwest's contentions in its unauthorized Reply. 

21 However, in the event the DOT decides to accept Southwest's otherwise unauthorized 

22 Reply, the DOT should also grant Mr. Williams' motion for leave and accept this response. 

23 Consequently, good cause subsists not only to identify Southwest's false declaration of the 

24 DOT's Rules of Practice in Proceedings and failure to follow those rules, but also to establish 

25 the appropriate rationale for the DOT to base its decision upon. 

26 

27 1 Complainant has been unable to verify a grant for leave by the DOT after several phone 

calls to the DOT since Southwest's unauthorized filing. Therefore, out of an abundance of 

28 caution, Complainant requests leave to file this response. 

-2-

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 II. 

2 

3 

SOUTHWEST FALSELY STATES BOTH THE RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

DOT PROCEEDINGS AND ITS COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH RULES. 

As a preliminary matter, Southwest incorrectly asserts, "DOT proceedings are not 

4 subject to the PRCP and these arguments have no merit. The Department's proceedings are 

5 governed by its Rules of Practice contained in 14 CPR Part 302, with which Southwest has 

6 complied." Southwest's Reply, p. 3 n.2. Contrary to Southwest's assertion, the Rules 

7 Applicable to Enforcement Proceedings under Subpart D of Part 302, which Southwest 

8 admits governs the DOT proceedings, specifically states: 

9 At any time after an answer has been filed, any party may file with the DOT 

10 decisionmaker or the administrative law judge a motion to dismiss or a motion 

11 for summary judgment, including supporting affidavits. The procedure on such 

12 motions shall be in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 

13 U.S. C.), particularly Rules 6(d), 7(b), 12, and 56 .... 

14 14 C.P.R.§ 302.4ll(a) (emphasis added). Thus, Southwest's attempt to avoid complying 

15 with the PRCP with regards to its motion to dismiss must fail. 

16 In addition, Southwest did not comply with Part 302 in its violation of 14 C.P.R.§ 

17 302.4ll(a) by prematurely filing its motion to dismiss. According to 14 C.P.R.§ 302.4ll(a), 

18 Southwest must first file an answer to Mr. Williams' formal complaint with the DOT, which 

19 it failed to do, before filing its motion to dismiss. Thus, Southwest improperly filed its 

20 motion to dismiss as its answer in violation of 14 C.P.R.§ 302.4ll(a). 

21 III. SOUTHWEST'S NEW CONTENTIONS RAISED IN ITS REPLY LACK 

22 CREDIBILITY AND ARE SUBMITTED WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING 

23 EVIDENCE. 

24 Southwest's most recent contentions submitted in its unauthorized reply further 

25 discredit the credibility of its own witnesses. 

26 

27 

28 

A. Southwest's Recent Refund to Mr. Williams Reflects the Inaccurate 

Information Provided in Southwest Employee's Declaration Submitted In 

Support of Its Motion to Dismiss. 

-3-

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 In response to Mr. Williams' Formal Third Party complaint, which included 

2 allegations that Mr. Williams never received a refund for the flight he was denied on 

3 February 15, 2011, Southwest initially claimed that it sent Mr. Williams a refund check in 

4 February 2011. See Declaration of Ellen MacMillan filed in support of Southwest's 

5 Answer/Motion to Dismiss ("MacMillan Dec!."), ~ 9. It is important to note that Southwest 

6 did not issue Mr. Williams a refund in response to learning that he did not receive a refund 

7 check. In response to Southwest's Answer/Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Williams submitted a 

8 Declaration stating that he did not receive a check from Southwest in support of his 

9 Opposition, which further pointed out that Southwest's claim to have already reimbursed him 

10 was unsubstantiated as Southwest never presented any evidence of an actual check made out 

11 to Mr. Williams or of any correspondence to Mr. Williams regarding a refund. Instead, 

12 Southwest was only able to submit a declaration by Ellen MacMillan claiming that she 

13 confirmed with Southwest's Finance Department that Southwest mailed a refund of$133.70 

14 to Mr. Williams and a computer screenshot that merely authorized a refund to Mr. Williams. 

15 See Exhibit C to MacMillan Dec!. 

16 Despite Southwest's prior affirmation that it refunded Mr. Williams for the flight he 

17 was denied and its employee's declaration to that effect, Southwest recently sent Mr. 

18 Williams a refund check. In an effort to explain away this discrepancy, Southwest states: 

19 In both the Complaint and Opposition, Mr. Williams stated that he did not 

20 receive a refund for the unused portion of his Southwest ticket. ... However, 

21 since Mr. Williams claims he never received the refund, Southwest has re22 issued the refond, per standard company practice, and is mailing it today to 

23 the DRLC offices on behalf of Mr. Williams. 

24 Southwest's Reply, p. 2 n.1 (emphasis added). The earnestness of Southwest's explanation, 

25 however, is doubtful for two reasons. First, according to Southwest's purported "standard 

26 company policy," Southwest should have refunded Mr. Williams as soon as he informed the 

27 airline that he had not received a refund for the denied flight on February 24, 2011. 

28 Nevertheless, Southwest failed to issue Mr. Williams a refund check after numerous phone 

-4-

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 calls soon after the incident (see Williams Decl. filed in support of Opposition to Motion to 

2 Dismiss,~ 13) or after being informed by an August 12, 20llletter, explaining that Mr. 

3 Williams was never refunded for the loss of his ticket. (See Declaration of Surisa Rivers, 

4 Exhibit E). Likewise, Southwest did not issue Mr. Williams a refund check after the filing 

5 of his Formal Third Party complaint. Indeed, Southwest never informed Mr. Williams or 

6 his counsel that it intended to issue him a refund after learning that he did not receive any 

7 check. Rather, Southwest only decided to send a refund check in response to Mr. Williams' 

8 Opposition to Southwest's Motion to Dismiss, which demonstrated that Southwest's claim 

9 that it provided a refund was unsubstantiated. 

10 Second, the purported policy to refund a customer anytime that customer claims he 

11 did not receive a refund check appears unsustainable on its face. Certainly, a company as 

12 large as Southwest, which issues refund checks to customers on a regular basis, must have a 

13 system in place to verify whether a customer actually received a refund check before re14 issuing a new check. That is, Southwest must have some reliable means of tracking and 

15 determining whether a customer had been sent a refund check and whether that check had 

16 been cashed before agreeing to re-send another refund check. Without such a system, 

17 Southwest, as well as any large business issuing refunds, would be susceptible to over18 refunding customers. 

19 B. Southwest Provides No Evidence to Support its Bald Assertions 

20 Regarding the Sufficiency of its Training Programs 

21 Southwest claims that it devotes extensive and appropriate resources to training and 

22 compliance with Part 3 82, including the training of a high number of Compliant Resolution 

23 Officers. However, Southwest noticeably fails to submit a shred of evidence by way of 

24 documentation or affidavit to support these new claims raised within its unauthorized Reply. 

25 Such failure to provide documentary evidence as to Southwest's training to support 

26 its Motion to Dismiss or unauthorized Reply is especially surprising in that all airlines, 

27 including Southwest, must incorporate procedures implementing the requirements of Part 

28 3 82 "in the manuals or other guidance or instructional materials" and "must retain these 

- 5 -

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 records for review by the Department." 14 C.F.R. § 382.145(a) (emphasis added). 

2 Nevertheless, to date Southwest has not provided any record of the training materials 

3 provided for its employees in order to proficiently train those employees in the requirements 

4 of Part 382. 

5 Furthermore, airlines "must retain for three years individual employee training 

6 records demonstrating that all persons required to receive initial and refresher training have 

7 done so." 14 C.F.R. § 382.145(b) (emphasis added). However, Southwest fails to provide 

8 proof of any employee training records, including the specific training records of LaRita 

9 West and Ellen MacMillan, the Southwest employees who acted in violation of Part 382. 

10 Although Ms. West and Ms. MacMillan declare they completed disability-related training, 

11 there is no evidence of Southwest's official records establishing that Ms. West and Ms. 

12 MacMillan did in fact complete the appropriate training as required by 14 C.F .R. § 

13 382.145(b). 

14 c. Southwest's New Assertions Regarding The Number of CRO Available 

15 to Assist Customers Contradict Its Own Prior Sworn Statement and 

16 Thus Lack Credibility and Merit. 

17 Southwest's new claims that it provides a high number of CROs for its customers, 

18 raised in its Reply, contradict Southwest's own prior sworn statement in its Answer/Motion 

19 to Dismiss, and thus lack credibility. In its unauthorized Reply, Southwest asserts, "[a]t the 

20 Phoenix Airport alone, Southwest has 45 trained CROs, which means that an average of 12 

21 are on site and available to assist customers at all times." Southwest's Reply, p. 5 

22 (emphasis added). However, Ms. MacMillan, Southwest's 30-year employee and allegedly 

23 experienced CRO, stated, "He [Mr. Williams] requested to talk to my boss, and I explained 

24 to him that there was no one else currently available because it was very early in the 

25 morning." MacMillan Dec!.,~ 5 (emphasis added). 

26 Hence, Southwest's statement "that an average 12 [CROs] are on site and available 

27 to assist customers at all times" directly contradicts Ms. MacMillan's sworn statement that 

28 "there was no one else currently available because it was very early in the morning." 

- 6-

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 Contra Southwest's Reply, p. 5; see MacMillan Dec!.,~ 5. Accordingly, Southwest's claim 

2 regarding CRO training is not only unsupported by any evidence but also disputed by its 

3 own prior evidence. 

4 IV. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

SOUTHWEST PERMITTED MR. WILLIAMS TO FLY WITH HIS SERVICE 

ANIMAL ON A SOUTHWEST FLIGHT FROM LOS ANGELES TO 

PHOENIX, BUT REFUSED TO ALLOW HIM TO FLY HOME WITH THE 

SAME SERVICE ANIMAL ON HIS RETURN FLIGHT. 

Southwest's unsound assertion that the dog in the photographs with Mr. Williams 

9 attached to Mr. Cuellar's Declaration is not the dog that accompanied Mr. Williams on the 

10 date of the incident is preposterous. See Exhibit A to Declaration of Steve A. Cuellar in 

11 Support of Complainant's Opposition to Southwest Airlines' Motion to Dismiss ("Cuellar 

12 Dec!."). Thus, Ms. West's Second Declaration claiming that "[t]he small, white dog in the 

13 photographs attached to Mr. Cuellar's Declaration is not the dog I observed with Mr. 

14 Williams on February 15, 2011," is not credible. See Second Declaration ofLaRita West 

15 ("West Second Dec!."),~ 4, attached as Exhibit A to Southwest's Reply. 

16 In addition, Mr. Williams submits a Second Declaration attesting that on February 13, 

17 2011, he flew with his service animal on a Southwest flight from Los Angeles International 

18 Airport to Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport on the departing flight of his round-trip ticket from 

19 Southwest without any trouble. See Second Declaration of Don Edward Williams ("Williams 

20 Second Dec!."),~ 5, attached as Exhibit A. Mr. Williams testifies, "On February 15, 2011, I 

21 approached a Southwest Airlines ticket counter at the Phoenix Airport to reschedule my 

22 return flight home to Los Angeles for that day with my same service dog that I few to 

23 Phoenix with on a Southwest Airlines' flight just two days prior." !d. at ~ 6. 

24 Mr. Williams further testifies, "I only have one service dog, which is the same service 

25 dog that accompanied me both on February 13,2011 when I departed on a Southwest 

26 Airlines' flight from Los Angeles to Phoenix and two days later, on the date of the incident, 

27 in the Phoenix Airport at issue in this matter." Williams Second Dec!., ~ 7. Moreover, Mr. 

28 Williams declares that he does not have any other service dogs or pets that he travels with on 

-7-

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 flights. Id. at~ 8. 

2 Consequently, even if Mr. Williams' service dog, which weighs less than five pounds, 

3 was three times bigger and weighed fifteen pounds, Mr. Williams' service dog still would not 

4 exceed Southwest's pet size requirements. Foremost, after Southwest denied Mr. Williams 

5 boarding because of his service animal, Mr. Williams flew from Phoenix to Los Angeles with 

6 his service animal on U.S. Airways, which has smaller pet requirements than Southwest. 

7 According to U.S. Airways' website, it permits soft-sided pet carriers that are 17 inches long 

8 by 16 inches wide by 10 inches tall, but reduces the dimensions to 8 inches tall if it is a hard9 sided pet carrier. See Exhibit B. However, Southwest states on its website that it permits pet 

10 carriers as big as 19 inches long by 19 inches wide by 8.25 inches tall. See Exhibit C. As a 

11 result, Southwest permits passengers to bring bigger pets than U.S. Airways permits. 

12 Moreover, several reviews by travelers of Southwest Airlines claimed they traveled 

13 with pets over fifteen pounds, which did not exceed Southwest's pet size requirements. 

14 According to reviews published on bringfido.com, Southwest permitted passengers to travel 

15 with a 25-pound Welsh corgi dog, a 22-pound Boston terrier, a 10-pound dog and 7-pound 

16 dog together, and finally a 13-pound cat and 11-pound cat together. See Exhibit D. Thus, 

17 Ms. West's Second Declaration contending, "[t]he dog that Mr. Williams brought with him 

18 to the airport on February 15 was at least three times larger than the dog in the picture," is 

19 without merit because Southwest permitted larger pets on its flights. West Second Dec!., ~ 5. 

20 Accordingly, the DOT should not give any credit to Southwest's allegations of fact because it 

21 lacks credibility and merit. 

22 V. 

23 

24 

25 

THE DOT SHOULD DENY SOUTHWEST'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

BECAUSE MATERIAL ISSUES OF FACT REMAIN UNRESOLVED AND 

SHOULD RESOLVE DOUBTS IN FAVOR OF MR. WILIAMS. 

As stated earlier, in a motion to dismiss, the DOT requires the procedures to "be in 

26 accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.), particularly Rules 6(d), 

27 7(b), 12, and 56 ... " 14 C.F.R. § 302.41l(a). Under Rule 12, "amotion to dismiss a 

28 

- 8-

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 complaint should not be granted if material issues offact are unresolved." Powell v. Sw. Bell 

2 Tel. Co., 494 F.2d 485,489 (5th Cir. 1974). 

3 In the present case, there are at least four material issues of fact that remain 

4 unresolved, including: (1) whether Mr. Williams was denied boarding because Southwest 

5 employees did not believe his dog was a service animal; (2) whether the Southwest 

6 employees asked clarifying questions regarding Mr. Williams service animal before 

7 demanding documentation; (3) whether the Southwest employees inappropriately demanded 

8 documentation regarding Mr. Williams' service animal; and (4) whether Southwest's 

9 purported reasons for denying Mr. Williams boarding for improper behavior is pretextual. 

10 Furthermore, according to Rule 12, "a motion to dismiss should be disfavored, and 

11 doubts should be resolved in favor of the pleader. Williams v. Gorton, 529 F .2d 668, 672 

12 (9th Cir. 1976). Therefore, the DOT should deny Southwest's improper motion to dismiss. 

13 In addition, Southwest's unauthorized Reply erroneously cites the Order of Dismissal, 

14 Order 2000-7-4, and Order Denying Petition for Review, Order 2000-9-15, Docket No. 2000-

15 7009, for its authority in stating, "[u]nder these circumstances there is no factual basis for 

16 further enforcement action, nor would the public interest be served by the Department doing 

17 so." Southwest's Reply, p. 7 & n.3. Nonetheless, Southwest neglects to mention that the 

18 Order of Dismissal in Ms. Caplan's complaint was due to the fact that a recent consent order 

19 issued by the DOT, Order 2000-3-24, covered similar violations of Part 382 raised by the 

20 complainant against the same airline carrier. 

21 In the recent consent order, the carrier had been directed to cease and desist from 

22 similar violations in the future, had taken remedial action with respect to its training program 

23 and had paid a civil penalty as prescribed in the consent agreement covering all relevant 

24 violations during the period discussed in Order 2000-3-24. For these reasons, the DOT 

25 "believed a new and separate investigation to reexamine essentially similar matters would 

26 raise issues of double jeopardy and fairness and would not be in the public interest." 

27 Complaint of Louise M. Caplan v. Continental Airlines, Inc. Under 49 U.S.C. § 41705, Order 

28 of Dismissal, OST Docket 2000-7009, Order 2000-7-4, 2000 WL 942953 (D.O.T.), 1. 

-9-

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 Here, the DOT has neither issued a recent consent order nor conducted an 

2 investigation that finds Southwest in violation of similar issues raised by Mr. Williams. As a 

3 result, the Order of Dismissal in Order 2000-7-4 is inappropriate authority as cited by 

4 Southwest in its unauthorized Reply. Thus, unlike the Order of Dismissal cited by 

5 Southwest, Mr. Williams complaint raises entirely new issues not covered in any recent 

6 consent order and the public interest warrants further investigation of Southwest's 

7 noncompliance with Part 382. 

8 VI. 

9 

MR. WILLIAMS REQUESTS THE EXPEDITION OF PROCEEDINGS. 

In this motion, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 302.ll(e), Mr. Williams also requests the 

10 expedition of proceedings. At this junction, Mr. Williams is not required to prove his entire 

11 case, especially without affording him the opportunity to conduct discovery. However, 

12 sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that Southwest discriminated against Mr. Williams 

13 on the basis of disability and that Southwest employees failed to abide by the requirements of 

14 the ACAA and 14 C.F.R. § 382 et seq. 

15 VII. CONCLUSION 

16 For the reasons stated above and in Complainant's Opposition to Southwest's Motion 

17 to Dismiss, Mr. Williams respectfully requests the DOT to deny Southwest's Motion to 

18 Dismiss and issue a notice instituting an enforcement proceeding against Southwest for 

19 violations of the ACAA and the DOT's implementing regulations under Part 382 because it 

20 is in the public interest to further investigate this matter. 

21 DATED: January 3Q_, 2012 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Respectfully Submitted, 

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 

By~~ 'SUTiSll:E. RiVe:&q: 

Attorneys for Complainant 

- 10-

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 

2 

3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Surisa Rivers, do hereby certify that on this 30th day of January, 2012, a copy ofthe 

foregoing Motion for Leave to Respond to the Unauthorized Reply of Southwest Airlines 

4 

5 Co. and Request for Expedition of Proceedings; Supporting Exhibits and Declaration of 

6 Surisa Rivers was served pursuant to 14 C.P.R. 302.7 upon the following: 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Samuel Podberesky, Esq. 

Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Department of Transportation Dockets 

400 7th Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Rosalind A. Knapp, Esq. 

Deputy General Counsel 

Department of Transportation Dockets 

400 7th Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dayton Lehman, Jr. 

Principal Deputy Assistant General Counsel 

Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings 

DOT 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

By mail and electronic mail (dayton.lehman@dot.gov) 

Leslie C. Abbott 

Attorney for Southwest Airlines Co. 

By electronic mail (leslie.abbott@wnco.com) 

- 11-

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO SOUTHWEST'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 
1 BEFORE THE 

2 

3 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

4 

5 

6 DON EDWARD WILLIAMS, 

7 Complainant, 

8 v. 

9 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., 

I 0 Respondent. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Docket DOT-OST-2011-0149 

) 

) 

) DECLARATION OF SURISA 

) RIVERS IN SUPPORT OF 

~ COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE 

) TO SOUTHWEST AIRLINES' 

) UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 

) 

) 

) Formal Third-Party Complaint 

~ Filed on August 12, 2011 

) 

) 16 

17 

18 

________________________ ) 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Communications with respect to this matter should be sent to: 

Declaration of Surisa Rivers 

Paula D. Pearlman (SBN 1 09038) 

Paula.Pearlman@lls.edu 

Shawna L. Parks (SBN 208301) 

Shawna.Parks@lls.edu 

Surisa E. Rivers (SBN 250868) 

SurisaRivers@lls.edu 

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 

800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Tel: (213) 736-1496; Fax: (213) 736-1428 

Attorneys for COMPLAINANT 

0 
1 DECLARATION OF SURISA RIVERS 

2 I, Surisa Rivers, hereby declare: 

3 1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge and if called to testify I 

4 could and would do so as follows: 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2. I am a Senior Staff Attorney at the Disability Rights Legal Center and am counsel of 

record in the pending matter. 

3. A true and correct copy of a letter dated August 12, 2011, which I sent to Southwest 

Airlines on behalf of Don Edward Williams is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California and the United States that the 

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 30th day of 

J•ow.y 2012io "'"''""'"'· O.lif~i,. ~ ~ 

SISARIVERS 

Declaration of Surisa Rivers 
EXHIBITE 
DRLC 

Disability Rights Legal Center 

www.disabilityrightslegalcenter.org 

August 12,2011 

Gary C. Kelly 

Chairman of Board, President, and CEO 

Southwest Airlines 

2702 Love Field Drive 

Dallas, Texas 75235-1647 

Via Certified Mail 

Re: Williams v. Southwest Airlines Co. 

Dear Mr. Kelly: 

Surisa E. Rivers 

Litigation Attorney 

Civil Rights Litigation Program 

Direct Line: 213-736-8306 

E-mail: Surisa.Rivers@LLS.edu 

Please be advised that the Disability Rights Legal Center has been retained to 

represent the interests of Mr. Don Edward Williams in his complaint for disability 

discrimination in air travel by Southwest Airlines, Company ('Southwest"). The Disability 

Rights Legal Center ("DRLC") is a non-profit disability rights firm that enforces the civil 

rights of individuals with disabilities under the Air Carrier Access Act ("ACM"), 

Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and related federal and state disability rights 

statutes. 1 

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with a description of Mr. 

Williams' disability discrimination claim against Southwest. Southwest refused and 

continues to refuse to provide any justification or refund for unlawfully revoking Mr. 

Williams' already purchased ticket to travel on the premise that he was required to have 

documentation to travel with his service animal. Thus, Southwest denied not only equal 

access, but also the enjoyment and benefit of air travel services offered by Southwest to 

Mr. Williams due to his disability, which is offered to persons without a disability. Mr. 

Williams demands that Southwest modify its practice, policies and procedures so that 

persons with a disability requiring a service animal will enjoy the same services 

provided by Southwest as individuals without disabilities. 

I. Background 

Mr. Williams previously purchased a round trip ticket for a flight (number 2176) 

departing at 7:05 PM from Los Angeles International Airport ("LAX") and arriving at 9:20 

1 This letter is sent without prejudice to Mr. Williams' rights and claims and does not include his 

negligence, intentional tort, state discrimination, and/or non-disability related civil rights claims. 

800 Figueroa St., Suite 1120, Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Telephone (213) 736-1031 • TDD (213)736-8310/8311 • Facsimile (213) 736-1428 

PROTECTING THE POSSIBILITIES SIMCE 1975 

Founded In Memory of A Milton Miller 

WWW.DISABILITYRIGHTSLEGALCENTER.ORG 
Southwest Airlines 

August 12, 2011 

Page 2 of7 

PM to Phoenix, Arizona on February 13, 2011, with a return flight (number 648) on 

February 14, 2011, departing from Phoenix at 2:45PM. Mr. Williams purchased this 

ticket from Southwest Airlines in Los Angeles, California for $267.40. Consequently, on 

February 14, 2011, Mr. Williams decided to remain in Phoenix and fly back to LAX on 

February 15, 2011. He called Southwest Airlines and informed a customer service 

agent about the change in his flight plans and arranged to change his flight at the 

Phoenix airport the next day. 

On February 15, 2011, when Mr. Williams went to the Southwest ticket counter at 

the Phoenix airport a Southwest employee (Mr. Williams believes her name is Ellen and 

recognized her from previous trips) abruptly and rudely requested Mr. Williams to show 

her his documents for his service animal. Mr. Williams replied that he knew federal law 

did not require him to provide documentation for his service dog in order to fly. He 

further explained that Southwest's computer system should have information about his 

service dog because he is a frequent flyer and remembered providing documentation in 

the past. Unsatisfied by Mr. Williams' remark and without making any effort to check 

Southwest's computer system, the agent again demanded that Mr. Williams provide 

documentation identifying his dog as a service animal in order for him to fly. 

In response, Mr. Williams asked the Southwest agent to speak with a manager, 

at which point the agent, Ellen, informed him that she was the "director for the day" and 

there was no one else he could speak to. Without further recourse, Mr. Williams asked 

the employee if she was prejudiced. At this point, she grew irate and snatched Mr. 

Williams' previously purchased airline ticket and told him he did not need to fly that day. 

Subsequently, Mr. Williams attempted to go to numerous other agents at different 

Southwest counters throughout the airport. However, the employee who denied him a 

flight and who illegally confiscated his airline ticket followed him around and instructed 

other Southwest employees not to assist him. As a result of this outrageous conduct, 

Mr. Williams was forced to purchase a new ticket from US Airways through a ticket 

agent who witnessed the events leading up to Mr. Williams' ticket being taken from him. 

Since the incident, Mr. Williams called the Southwest Customer Service and 

Claims Departments on several occasions in an attempt to resolve the issue. 

Unfortunately, however, the employees he spoke to were unable and/or unwilling to 

assist him. He was never informed about any compliance officer who he could speak to 

regarding his claims of disability discrimination and failure to be provided a reasonable 

accommodation. To date, Southwest has neither refunded nor reimbursed Mr. Williams 

for the cost of the ticket that the agent unlawfully seized. 

II. Southwest Violates the Air Carrier Access Act and Its Accompanying 

Regulations. 

Under Section 41705 of Title 49 in the United States Code, the Air Carrier 

Access Act ("ACAA") prohibits both U.S. and foreign air carriers from discriminating 
Southwest Airlines 

August 12, 2011 

Page 3 of 7 

against a qualified individual because the individual has a physical or mental impairment 

that substantially limits one or more major life activities. See 49 U.S.C. § 41705(a)-

(a)(1 ). Furthermore, a carrier may not discriminate against a qualified individual on the 

grounds that the individual has a record of such a physical or mental impairment or is 

regarded as having such an impairment. See 49 U.S.C. § 41705(a)(2)-(3). 

Additionally, under Part 382 of Title 14 in the Codes of Federal Regulations, the 

Department of Transportation ("DOT"), in interpreting and implementing the ACAA, set 

forth the standards of service that carriers must provide for individuals with disabilities. 

The purpose of 14 C.F.R. § 382 is to carry out the ACAA, as amended. Not only does 

Part 382 prohibit U.S. and foreign carriers from discriminating against passengers on 

the basis of disability, but Part 382 also requires carriers to take steps to accommodate 

passengers with a disability. See 14 C.F.R. § 382.1. 

As a U.S. carrier, Southwest is forbidden to discriminate against a qualified 

individual on the basis of having or having a record of a physical or mental impairment 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41705. Part 382 also applies to a U.S. carrier with respect to all 

operations and aircraft, regardless of where such operations take place, except as 

otherwise provided. See 14 C.F.R. § 382.7. Since Southwest is a corporation 

organized under the laws of Texas and directly undertakes to engage in air 

transportation as its primary business, it thus qualifies as an air carrier within the 

meaning of the ACCA and its accompanying regulations. Accordingly, by the authority 

of the ACAA, Southwest is a U.S. carrier obligated to comply with the regulations 

promulgated under 14 C.F.R. § 382 et seq. 

Mr. Williams who purchased a ticket from Southwest is a qualified individual with 

a disability and a protected person under 49 U.S.C. § 41705 and 14 C.F.R. § 382.3. In 

regards to obtaining a ticket for air transportation on a carrier, a "qualified individual with 

a disability" refers to an individual with a disability who, as a passenger offers, or makes 

a good faith attempt to offer, to purchase or otherwise validly to obtain such a ticket. 

See 14 C.F.R. § 382.3(a)(1). In addition, an "individual with a disability" means "any 

individual who has a physical or mental impairment that, on a permanent or temporary 

basis, substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an 

impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment." 14 C.F.R. § 382.3. Since 

Mr. Williams uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes, he has a physical impairment, 

which establishes Mr. Williams as a qualified individual with a disability. 

Nonetheless, individuals with a disability, like Mr. Williams who needs the 

assistance of a service animal due to his disability, are unlawfully discriminated against 

when they are required to present any documentation for an animal that is a service 

animal. Federal regulations, and even Southwest's own policies, specifically state 

documentation is not required for service animals. As a result, Southwest directly 

violates the ACAA and its regulations, along with Mr. Williams' civil rights by 

discriminating against him on the basis of his disability for refusing to provide him an 
Southwest Airlines 

August 12, 2011 

Page 4 of7 

accommodation to fly. Consequently, Southwest violates several of its obligations 

including, but not limited to, the regulations outlined below. 

Ill. Southwest Employee Took Adverse Action Against Mr. Williams in 

Violation of 14 C.F.R. § 382.11. 

Most importantly, Southwest undertook adverse action against Mr. Williams for 

asserting his right protected by Part 382 to travel with his service animal without 

documentation. An air carrier "must not take any adverse action against an individual 

(e.g. refusing to provide transportation) because the individual asserts, on his or her 

own behalf or through or on behalf of others, rights protected by this Part or the Air 

Carrier Access Act." 14 C.F.R. § 382.11 (a)(4). The right to travel with a service animal 

is protected under Part 382. See 14 C.F.R. § 382.117(a). Mr. Williams asserted his 

right that he did not need documentation with an attempt to appeal the conflict to higher 

authority, but the Southwest agent then claimed to be the manager. Without any other 

available recourse, Mr. Williams asked the agent if she was prejudiced. In response, 

the Southwest agent grew extremely irate and swiftly took adverse action against Mr. 

Williams. The agent's adverse action included snatching Mr. Williams' ticket and 

refusing to provide him transportation without any type of refund or reimbursement. 

IV. Southwest Unlawfully Denied Mr. Williams His Right to Travel with a 

Service Animal. 

A. Southwest violates requirements to accept credible verbal assurances 

of a qualified individual with a disability using the service animal. 

As evidence that an animal is a service animal, an air carrier "must accept 

identification cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses, tags, or the 

credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal." 

14 C.F.R. § 382. 117(d) (emphasis added). While a carrier may require documentation 

for an emotional support or psychiatric service animal, such regulation is inapplicable in 

the present case as Mr. Williams dog is a service animal, trained to assist him retrieve 

dropped items and alert him to danger. Moreover, at no point during the interaction did 

the agent ask Mr. Williams whether his service dog was an emotional support animal. 

Furthermore, federal regulations declare that as evidence that an animal is a 

service animal, a carrier must accept the credible verbal assurances of a qualified 

individual with a disability using the animal. See 14 C.F.R. § 382.117(d) (emphasis 

added). Although other forms of evidence include identification cards, other written 

documentation, presence of harnesses, or tags, it is important to note that this is what 

the carrier must accept as evidence if provided with such an item. See 14 C.F.R. § 

382.117(d). It is not, however, a list of items of what an air carrier may demand from a 

passenger to present as evidence to indicate an animal is a service animal. Thus, 

Southwest violated 14 C.F.R. § 382.117(d) by improperly requiring documentation for a 
Southwest Airlines 

August 12, 2011 

Page 5 of7 

service animal, rather than accepting the credible verbal assurances of Mr. Williams, a 

qualified individual with a disability using the animal. 

B. Southwest's acts defy requirements to provide a passenger within 10 

days a document explaining the denial of a service animal. 

Southwest violated 14 C.F.R. § 382.117(g) by failing to comply with both 

requirements established by this provision. When an air carrier decides not to accept 

an animal as a service animal, it must explain the reason for its decision to the 

passenger and document it in writing. Additionally, a carrier must provide a copy of the 

explanation "to the passenger either at the airport, or within 10 calendar days of the 

incident." 14 C.F.R. § 382.117(g). First, Southwest violated 14 C.F.R. § 382.117(g) by 

failing to document in writing the reason for its refusal to accept Mr. Williams' animal as 

a service animal. Second, Southwest violated 14 C.F.R. § 382.117(g) by failing to 

provide a copy of such document to Mr. Williams either at the airport or within 10 

calendar days of the incident. Thus, Southwest clearly violated the regulations and 

obligations imposed by 14 C.F.R. §. 382.117(g). 

V. Southwest Unlawfully Denied Mr. Williams Access to a Complaint 

Resolution Official. 

Southwest failed to inform Mr. Williams to contact a Complaints Resolution 

Officials ("CRO") with regards to their dispute concerning the proper requirements for a 

service animal at the time of the conflict. A U.S. carrier must make a CRO available at 

each airport it serves during all times that it operates at that airport. An air carrier may 

make the CRO available in person at the airport or via telephone, at no cost to the 

passenger. See 14 C.F.R § 382.151(b). Moreover, an air carrier must make 

passengers with a disability aware of the availability of a CRO and how to contact the 

CRO in the two following situations. 

First, in any circumstance in which any person complains or raises a concern 

with an air carrier's personnel about discrimination, accommodations, or services with 

respect to passengers with a disability, and the carrier's personnel do not immediately 

resolve the issue to the customer's satisfaction or provide a requested accommodation. 

In this situation, the carrier's "personnel must immediately inform the passenger of the 

right to contact a CRO and then contact a CRO on the passenger's behalf or provide the 

passenger a means to do so (e.g., a phone, a phone card plus the location and/or 

phone number of the CRO available at the airport)." 14 C.F.R § 382.151(c)(1). Second, 

an air carrier's "reservation agents, contractors, and Web sites must provide information 

equivalent to that required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section to passengers with a 

disability using those services who complain or raise a concern about a disability-related 

issue." 14 C.F.R§ 382.151(c)(2). 

Consequently, Southwest violated 14 C.F.R. § 382.151 because the Southwest 

agent at the counter and the numerous representatives on the phone never made Mr. 
Southwest Airlines 

August 12, 2011 

Page 6 of 7 

Williams aware of his right to contact a CRO. Southwest failed to bring such information 

to Mr. Williams' attention for both his discrimination claim and his claim for failure to 

provide an accommodation to travel with his service animal. In addition, both of these 

claims relate to an act of discrimination on the basis of his disability in air travel, and 

directly conflict with the purpose of the ACAA and its associated regulations that are 

intended to protect persons like Mr. Williams. 

VI. Southwest Fails to Provide the Necessary Training to its Employees as 

Required by 14 C.F.R. § 382.141. 

In the present case, Southwest specifically violated 14 C.F.R. § 382.141(a)(1)(i) 

by failing to provide the appropriate training for its employees to be proficient in the 

requirements set by the regulations implementing the ACAA. This is evident by the fact 

that the Southwest agent required Mr. Williams to provide documentation for his service 

animal in direct violation of federal standards and Southwest's own polices. In addition 

to the requirement to train its employees to be proficient concerning the requirements of 

Part 382 and other applicable federal regulations, an air carrier must ensure that all 

personnel who are required to receive training receive refresher training as needed to 

maintain proficiency. An air carrier must develop a program that will result in each such 

employee receiving refresher training at least once every three years, and "must retain 

for three years individual employee training records demonstrating that all persons 

required to receive initial and refresher training have done so." 14 C.F.R. § 382.145(b). 

Based on Mr. Williams experience, it is evident that Southwest does not provide 

adequate training, if at all, as required by the provisions establishing nondiscrimination 

on the basis of an individual's disability in air travel. Hence, this violation demonstrates 

Southwest may likely be committing systematic and pervasive acts of discrimination 

against persons with a disability, which is strictly forbidden by the ACAA. Thus, 

Southwest unlawfully discriminated and continues to discriminate against passengers 

with a disability, including those needing a service animal due to their disability, by 

failing to provide them with the same services as those provided to individuals without 

disabilities. Accordingly, action must be taken against Southwest, or by Southwest, not 

only to rectify the violation of Mr. Williams' rights, but also to further protect the civil 

rights of all the vulnerable passengers with a disability by preventing the future 

discrimination practices of Southwest against persons with a disability. 

VII. Demand 

As a result of the foregoing acts of discrimination on the basis of disability in air 

travel, Southwest denied Mr. Williams' ability to use and enjoy services purportedly 

offered to all other members of the general public. Mr. Williams demands the following 

steps to be taken to bring Southwest into full compliance with the ACAA and its 

implementing regulations. In addition, any settlement of this matter must include 

development and implementation of a policy to ensure that individuals with a disability 
Southwest Airlines 

August 12, 2011 

Page 7 of7 

will be reasonably accommodated so as to benefit from the services offered by 

Southwest. This will include at a minimum: 

1) Implementation of policies and procedures to prevent discrimination and 

reasonably accommodate passengers with a disability so that they may benefit 

from the services offered by Southwest; 

2) Adequate training and education of Southwest's Phoenix Arizona employees and 

Southwest's Dallas, Texas Customer Service and Claims Department personnel 

in the requirements of the law in disability rights, including effectively assisting 

passengers with a disability; 

3) Damages for Mr. Williams, including a refund for his ticket, as well as attorneys' 

fees and costs. 

Please contact me immediately regarding this issue, but no later than Au~ust 24, 

2011. We hope to reach a resolution of these claims without pursuing litigation. Yet, if 

we do not hear from you on or before August 24, 2011, then we will pursue all available 

legal remedies regarding this issue, including, if necessary, litigation. 

I look forward to discussing this matter at your earliest convenience and can be 

reached directly at (213) 736-8306. 

Sincerely, 

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 

sbvV 

Attorneys for Mr. Williams 

cc: Jim Ruppel, Vice President Customer Relations/Rapid Rewards 

Madeleine Johnson, Vice President General Counsel 

' As we may not be able to resolve the above violations directly with Southwest Airlines, DRLC 

has formally filed the.enclosed complaint with the Department of Transportation. 
EXHIBIT A 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

DON EDWARD WILLIAMS, ) 

) 

) 

) 

Complainant, 

v. 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., 

Respondent. 

) Docket DOT-OST-2011-0149 

) 

) 

) SECOND DECLARATION OF 

) DON EDWARD WILLIAMS IN j SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S 

) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

) RESPOND TO THE 

) UNAUTHORIZED REPLY OF 

) SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. 

) AND REQUEST FOR j EXPEDITION OF PROCEEDINGS 

) 

j Formal Third-Party Complaint 

_____________ ) Filed on August 9, 2011 

Communications with respect to this matter should be sent to: 

Paula D. Pearlman (SBN 109038) 

Paula.Pearlman@lls.edu 

Shawna L. Parks (SBN 208301) 

Shawna.Parks@lls.edu 

Surisa E. Rivers (SBN 250868) 

Surisa.Rivers@lls.edu 

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 

800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Tel: (213) 736-1496; Fax: (213) 736-1428 

Attorneys for COMPLAINANT 

-0-

SECOND DECLARATION OF DON EDWARD WILLIAMS 
l SECOND DECLARATION OF DON EDWARD WILLIAMS 

2 I, Don Edward Williams, hereby declare: 

3 l. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge and if called to 

4 testify I could and would do so as follows: 

5 2. I am a resident of the City of Los Angeles, State of California, and I reside at 

6 2109 S. Marvin Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90016. 

7 3. I have a mobility disability and I use a wheelchair for mobility. In addition, I 

8 use the help of a trained service dog, which I have had for approximately four years, to help 

9 me with things I cannot do because of my mobility disability, such as alerting me to danger 

l 0 and picking things up that I drop. The photographs attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration 

ll of Steve Cuellar filed in support of my opposition to Southwest's Answer/Motion to Dismiss 

12 were taken on October 11, 2011 and depict me and my service dog that accompanied me on 

13 the date of the incident at issue in this matter. 

14 4. On November 2, 2011, I signed a declaration describing my incident with 

15 Southwest Airlines at the Phoenix Airport on February 15,2011. 

16 5. On February 13, 2011, I flew with my service dog on a Southwest Airlines' 

17 flight from Los Angeles International Airport to Phoenix Airport on the departing flight of 

18 my round-trip ticket that I previously purchased through Southwest Airlines. I had no 

19 trouble flying with my service dog on a Southwest Airlines' fight from Los Angeles to 

20 Phoenix. 

21 6. On February 15,2011, I approached a Southwest Airlines ticket counter at the 

22 Phoenix Airport to reschedule my return flight home to Los Angeles for that day with my 

23 same service dog that I flew to Phoenix with on a Southwest Airlines' flight just two days 

24 pnor. 

25 7. I only have one service dog, which is the same service dog that accompanied 

26 me both on February 13, 2011 when I departed on a Southwest Airlines' flight from Los 

27 Angeles to Phoenix and two days later, on the date of the incident, in the Phoenix Airport at 

28 issue in this matter. 

-ISECOND DECLARATION OF DON EDWARD WILLIAMS 
01/30/2012 15:58 3103904906 WCIL 

01/30/2012 13;57 FAX 2137381428 ORLC 

I 8. I do not b.tve any other service dogs or pets that J travel with on flights. 

PAGE 03/04 

liil 004/004. 

:. '. 

2 1 declare under .P<'ruUty of perjury under the laws of California and the United States 

3 tl:uu the foregoing is true md correct to the best of zny knowledge and belief. Executed this 

4 .2.Q day of January 2012 in Los Angeles, Califomi 

5 

6 

7 

g 

9 

10 

1l 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

·2· 

Sf!CC •NO DJ;:CLARA'I'ION OF DON EDWARD WILUAMS 
EXHIBITB 
05 Airways I Pets 1/23/i2 10;20 AM 

Cont;:oct US 

You are here ... + .Hpme ~··+ Tra.velklols· -·~-+- F?olides & srjecia.f.n":eds. ···+. Pets 

P¢.fs i.n :p~ssenger cabin· 

On this year's vacation, keep the savings. And your resolutions. 

Savu.· up Ia S275• whenyml u.~·e ymw Ata.\'ft'IC,ut!a' aml t- •T.,-u~v~.,\Ji~wus :>f'r!~ 

1 small domestic dog, cat or bird per passenger is allowed in the passenger cabin for $125 each way. 

For tic~ets purchased before NQvember 15. 2011. the pet fee Is $100 each way. 

When you travel with a pet. ptease check ln with an. agent at the airport. lfyou're on a codeshare· !light. please 

check with that airline for carry-on pet poficies and fees. 

Rules and regulations 

• Pets In cabin count toward your carry-on baggage allowance. Pets must remain Inside their approved container under the seat directly In front 

nfyou. 

• Carry-on pe!s are not allowed on transatlantic nights .or flights to/from Brazil, Tel Aviv, Ba,bados or Hawaii. 

• Only dogs and cats are allowed to/from Mexico and Costa Rlca. Please contact the appropria!e embassy or consulate at least (our'weeks 

befo(e you travel. Call 800-4284322 fo( mare inforrnation·. 

·CoOtad ar:~-'embassy Qr.conSulat~ 

Approved carriers 

US Airv.rays accepts ha(d-sided carriers up to- 17 inches long (43 anf x 16 inches wide {40 em)- x 8 inches tau {20 em) and so£t-sided carriers up 

to 17 inches long (43 em} X t6 inches wide (40 em) X 10 Inches tall (25 em). 

On US Ai!Ways Express tnghts, pet carriers must not be more than 15 [nelles long· (38 em) x 17 inches wtde- (43 em) xa inches tall {20 em} on 

CRJ aircraft. more than 16 inc;hes. tong (40 OTI) x 17 inches wide {43· em) x 8 inches lall (20 em} on OH3 aircraft or more !han 15 inches long (38 

em) x 14 inches wide (35 em) x 8 inches taU (20 em) oo DH8 aircraft. 

1, Carriers must be leak-proof a.nd escape-p~oo-f, 

2. Carriers mu$l be ventitated on at least 2 si:das~ but not altow a:n.y par:t of !he animal: tO< protrude ou!side of the container. 

:;;. CarriGrs ml,lSl provide roQm for the animal: to stand up. and [Um ar.ound. 

4. Carriers can be made of metal, wood or hard plastiGJ'composite. Exceptions are made for sort-sided con!ainers made specifically for pet 

carriage. 

htt p://www.usairways.com/ en.-USHrave ltool:s/s pe<:ial need's 1 pets. tum I Pa~e 1 of 3 
EXHIBITC 
P<ts 

FAQs 

BrowseFAQs 

Selec!Topk: 

I Pets 

Go 

Need Help? We're a dick away. 

Contact Us 

I :1 

Print & Share 

Pets View All I Close All 

Why is Southwest allowing pets onboard? 

Southwest Airlines warns to ef'l!'lal'\ce the Customer Experler'!ce for pet-LUVIr.g travelers. 

Southwest Ailiines wlll only accept small cats and dogs in carriers that can be stowed 

under the Customer's 5eat. 

How much Is the Pet Fare? 

Wil pels be allowed In cargo? 

How many pets..., allowed per alrcrnft? 

Southwest's pet policy states that we will accept up to five (5) pet earners per scheduled 

flight. However, from time to time, circumstances may allow for more than five pet 

carriers on a flight. 

How many pet carriers is each Customer allowed? 

Customers wJII be permitted to travel with no more than one (1) pet carrier per persOfl. 

Each pet carrier can Mve no more.: than two (2) or the same species of small cats or dogs 

per pet carrier. 

No, animals assisting Customers with disabilities will not count toward the maximum 

number of pets permitted on board. 

Can a OJstomertravel.ing witttan assistanc:e animal also bring a pet? 

Ves. Both a11ima1s will need to fit under the seat in front of t1"1e Customer. If both animals 

don"t fit under one seat,. the Customer may purchase a second seat and place the pet 

and carrier under that seat. 

What1ypeSolpetcanie<scan~bring? 

Customers may bring a soft or hard-sided pet carrier that is leak proof ar'ld well 

ventilated. The pet carrier must be small enough to fit under the seat 111 front of tt1e 

Customer and be stowed in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations. 

The dog or cat must be able to stand up and turn around In the carrrer with 

ease. 

How big can my pet carrie< be? 

Your pet carrier must be able to fit under the seat ir"l fror"lt of you. The umler-seat 

dimensions are as follows: 

Window Seat: 19"L X 14"W X 8.2S"H 

Middle Seat: 19"L X 19"W x 8.25"H 

h.ttp:Jjwww.southwest.comjhtml/generated{he:!p/faqsfpets_faq.html 

1/23/12 10:57 AM 

Pagelof3 
EXHIBITD 
Southwest Airlines Pet Travel Policy 

DESTINATIONS LODGING 

~- Sear~-~--~::~:-~~~~=~~" 

F 

-~ 

:J 

I 

F---=-----4 gm;;p B!>5t Rate Guarantee 

~-~-~---~-~-~::~~-~~----

Worldwide Quick Links 

Destination Guides 

Pet Friendly Accommodations 

Hotels & Motels (20,904) 

Bed & Breakfasts (8S9) 

• Vacation Rentals (14,243) 

• Long-Term Apartments (l) 

• Campgrounds (2,643) 

• Post a New Property 

Dog Friendly Attractions 

• Dog Parks {2,519) 

• Dog Beaches (289) 

• Dog Friendly Hiking Trails (6,019) 

• Dog Friendly Tours (85) 

• Pet Friendly Shopping (1 57} 

> Other Attractions (356) 

1/23/12 11:04 AM 

AIR TRA\I[L ATTRACTIONS RESTAURANTS SERVICES EVENTS PHOTOS FORUM 

Home> Air Travel> Airline Pet Policies> Southwest Airlines 

Southwest Airlines 

VISIT WEBSITE 

South'<vest .Airlines Pet Policy 

Carry-On Pet Policy: 

Southwest Airlines allows customers to carry small pets {cats and dogs only) on board all Southwest Airlines 

flights. All in-cabin pets must be carried in an appropriate pet carrier. The pet fee is $75.00 each way per 

pet carrier. Each customer is limited to carrying one pet carrier on board. The carrier may contain up to two 

cats or dogs of the same species. The carrier will count as the customer's carry-on bag. Southwest does not 

require a health certificate or any other documentation from the customer's veterinarian for pets to travel. 

Checked Bagage/Cargo Policy: 

Pets are not allowed in the cargo area on Southwest Airlines. 

Carrier Guidelines: 

Soft·sided and hard-sided carriers specifically designed as pet carriers are acceptable. The carriers must be 

leak·proof and well ventilated. The pet carrier must be small enough to fit under the seat in front of the 

customer and be stowed in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The cat or dog 

must be able to stand up and move around the carrier with ease. 

Pet Reservations: 

Reservations for small cats or dogs can only be booked by ca!Hng Southwest Airlines at 1-800-1-FLY-SWA {l800-435-9792}. Pets will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis until capacity is reached. The total 

number of pet carriers per flight is limited to five at this time, so customers should make their pet 

reservations as soon as they confirm travel plans to ensure availability for their pets. The pet fee must be 

collected at the ticket counter and is nonrefundable and may not be applied toward future-date travel if 

unused. Customers traveling with a cat or dog must check in pet at the airport ticket counter and pay the 

pet fee before going to the departure gate. Customers can still secure their boarding pass online, at 

curbside check in, the airport kiosk, or the ticket counter. Southwest Airlines does not accept pets traveling 

without a customer, and pets are not permitted to travel with unaccompanied minors. 

Photos of Soutlnvest Airlines 

•• 

http: I /www. bri ngfido. com I travel/airline _policies I southwest/ Page 1 of 9 
Southwest Airlines Pet Travel Policy 

> Post a New Attraction 

Outdoor Restaurants 

, Post a New Restauram 

Dog Events 

, Post a New Event 

Pet Services 

, Pet Sitting and Dog Walking (692) 

• Online Resources <170) 

• Animal Shelters (34} 

• Dog Training (1.480} 

, Dog Grooming (1 ,348) 

• Pet Stores (2, 1 62} 

• Veterinary Clinics (85 7) 

• Dog Boarding Kennels (512) 

, Other Pet Services (328) 

• Post a New Business 

Dog Pictures 

• Post a New Photo 

Dog Forum 

• Post a New Topic 

Veterinarian 

Approved 

Covers 90% 

of your vet bill 

Affordable 

Premiums 

Traveler Reviews of Southwest Airlines 

Q Average Rating: J'J:..4'1' ~ The Southwest Airlines is rated# among airlines based on 55 guest reviews. 

Review 

Spoiling it for the rest of us. 

Gail in MA 

I keep reading reviews: by people who take their dogs: out of the carrier in the airport 

and in the plane. Please don't spoil traveling with our pets by pushing the rules. And 

pets are not allowed under the seats in the exit rows on ALL airlines, as they expect the 

people that sit in those seats to help in the event of an evacuation. 

What is the fee for? 

Liz in Fort Myers beach 

1 understand the fee is for controlling the number of animals on the plane. But couldn't 

the fee at least cover getting some air? Imagine being in a small cage squashed under a 

seat with no vEntilation for hours! 

2Sib corgi, no problems 

Erik in Tampa, FL 

Flew last week with 2Sib corgi. No issues at all. She flew in large sherpa bag which fit 

under the seat well. She didn't exactly have a lot of room to move around, but we did 

not have any problems.The staff was great and was very helpful. We did get one 

comment from a TSA person that she looked a little big, but they have no say in the 

matter. Overall great experience. Disclaimer: I was flying on a Southwe~t friends and 

family pass, not sure if this made a difference. 

No Worries! 

Michele in Indianapolis 

I was a little worried about qny issues that I may encounter with my Sherpa carrier and 9 

lb Maltese on his first flight to Vegas recently b/c of some of the reviews. However, no 

problems were encountered at all and all Southwest personnel we dealt with were very 

personable and helpfuL On both flights, the person sitting in the row with my husband 

and I stated they were unaware that we had a dog until we were de·planing! In fact, a 

flight attendant said she didn't even know there was a dog on board until we walked past 

her while de-planing in Indy. (I guess pets aren't listed on the manifest?) Overall it was 

an excellent experience ... .$75 fee each way seems a little pricey ... and 1 hope more 

airports catch on and open pet relief areas AFTER the security checkpoints. :-) 

Love Carrier 

Lauren in St. Louis 

I love the carrier. Not only is cute, and not an eyesore ... lt has nice mesh sides, so! could 

keep my fingers near my pup on his first few airplane trips ·which I am sure can be 

scary with all the sights and sounds. Not to mention he had never been zipped In a bag 

before. He is a 22 lb boston terrier and fit a little cramped, but he did just fine. All SW 

staff was so courteous and tried to make me more comfortable, as well as Wellington, 

my canine baby! 

Looking for Reviews on the Southwest carrier 

Kristine in Laguna Niguel 

Has anyone used the Southwest Carrier·· I'm an getting ready to fly with my 8 lb 

Havanese, and need to buy a carrier, and I'm tossed between the one from Southwest :u1rl tho ll~nn hv To:~frn :>rt\1 <:OI<'1no:><:tinn<:7 

http://www. bri ngfido. com /travel/airline _policies 1 sou thwestf 

l/23/12 11:04 AM 

Rating 

Nil./ 

./II .II 

IIIII 

/Ill.! 

Jtl'll 

Page 2 of 9 
Southwest Airlines Pet Travel Policy l/23/12 11:04 AM 

Glad you are becoming dog friendly ./:/,/// 

Susan in Pompano Beach 

This might be an option for those (like myself) with a larger dog that needs his own seat 

http:/ /petairways.com/ 

Thanks for the policy change! !J'/.!.l 

Annie in Oakland 

I'm so glad Southwest now allows carry-on pets. My 6-lb yorkipoo Is a frequent flyer. 

Southwest's pet fee is at the reasonable end of the scale {one airline charges $200!!) The 

pet reser\'ation process is easy and transparent compared to some other airlines. Since 

the pet policy change, I always fly Southwest. 

Thanks for the policy change! 

Annie in Oakland 

I'm so glad Southwest now allows carry-on pets. My 6-lb yorkipoo is a frequent flyer. 

Southwest's pet fee is at the reasonable end of the scale (one airline charges $200!!) The 

pet reser\'ation process is easy and transparent compared to some other airlines. Since 

the pet policy change, I always fly Southwest. 

Flying with my little Maltese 

Toni in Arizona 

I love you Southwest. thank you for enacting a pet policy. I have 2 very small Maltese 

and have been able to fly with both of them. 1 purchased the Southwest pet car!'ying 

case for them and it is perfect. Flying is just great with you. thanks so much for making 

It easy 

Flying With my little Maltese 

Toni in Arizona 

I love you Southwest thank you for enacting a pet policy. I have 2 very small Maltese 

and have been able to fly with both of them.! purchased the Southwest pet ca.r!'ying 

case for them and it is perfect. Flying Is just great with you. thanks so mw:h fo( making 

it easy 

:) 

Haley in Alabama 

I was neJVous about flying with my 3 pound Chihuahua, and thought I'd have a hard 

time. The flight attendants were VERY helpful and nice, and even offered water to my 

dog. She started to get upset and whined at take-off, and when we got in the air, I took 

her out for a little while and the flight attendants didn't tell me to put her away! I was 

skeptical about flying SW with my dog, but It was a good experience and I will 

DEFINITELY fly again With south west! 

My dog's a frequent flier! 

Sharlene in Austin, TX 

The first day SW accepted pets on board, my maltese and I boarded a flight from Austin 

to Chicago. The gate agents and I 'learned" together how to process and travel with a 

pet. I have nothing but high praise for the gate agents, customer seJVice and flight 

attendants. There have been absolutely no problems. My dog and I have flown over 12 

round trip flights and have two more planned. Only wish they would grant rapid rewards 

points to me for my buddy. (American does- hint, hint!) Middle seat is the largest for 

the carrier. 

Great experience 

Beverly in Chicago 

just returned from a trip to California. This was my first time taking my 12 pound Min 

Pin. 1 was concerned about the size of my large sierra carrying case. We had no problems. The window and middle seats had plenty of room. rhe isle seat was to 

narrow, 1 was able to bend the back of the case and slide it under the seat. The 

southwest agents and crew were great. I will travel again with southwest ..... 

Southwest was amazing 

?atricia in Orlando, FL 

I flew with both of my dogs ln one carrier and had no Issues with southwest. I have a i 

pound dorkie and a 1 0 pound chi/yorkie mix. The flight attendants were super friendly 

a~d ~ave helpfu! hints ~s. to w~ar to sit and .o.ffered the girls .wat~r. I have a. sturdi~ag 

l.li!J' 

ltllJ' 

http:f /www. bringfid o.com /travel/ airli ne_policies 1 sou thwestf Page 3 of 9 
Southwest Airlines Pet Travel Policy 

which is a 12xl2Xl8, did not have any trouble getting it under the seat in tront ot me. 

The middle seat has the most under seat room. I am looking forward on taking the 

doggies on another trip :) 

Underseat height 

Gloria in Columbia 

I have not yet flown with my 9-pound dog, but look forward to taking her on SW in 

February. Mary-Alice at the excellent www.dogjaunt.com measured under SW seats and 

got 11" high, not 8.25'' as on SW website. Has anyone else measured ACTUAL HEIGHT 

UNDER SEATS? She has used a SturdiBag carrier with a flexible top that can be smashed 

down as needed to fit. Anyone else use this? 

Hopeful 

VirgIn Ohio 

After checking the reviews I am looking forward to giving southwest a try with pet 

travel! I hope the attendants are really as nice as people have said, be squishing a pet 

under a seat can be really cruel and its not the passengers fault when the plane has 

different measurements than the seat next to them .... so going to book my next flight 

with southwest! so glad they have opened cabin to pets! 

2 Adult Cats ok! 

Albany Kelley in NYC I Wash DC 

Yesterday I had to travel to Las Vegas and pick up my mom's two cats and bring them 

back to our home in DC, while she recovers from an illness. The cats are 13 pounds and 

11 pounds respectfully. I got the medium soft~sided carrier at Wal-mart of all places 

after going to 4 stores! It measures 19" by 11" high (bended to fit under the seat 

perfectly) by 12 or 13" wide I think. When I saw the cats and realized how big they were, 

I was worried I wouldn't be able to fly SW with them. They were VERY crowded in the 

carrier (side by side laying down, length was okay at 19", but width had them squished 

together a bit. SW counter check-In went wei!, even though the sister was hissing at the 

brother the entire time {lol). The agent peered into the carrier concerned, but as soon as 

I explained they would calm down later and they weren't used to being outside at all , 

the agent was fine. Security personnel actually HELPED me when it was time to get the 

cats out and walk them through. Then on the plane, the stewardess came by about 3 

times to offer water for them and make sure they were okay. Now a day later, the cats 

seem to be adjusting well. I will ALWAYS fly Southwest with my animals from now on, 

hands down, $75.00 each way, if traveling within the states, no vet paperwork required. 

MUST make reservations by phone (no payment at that time though) to ensure your 

flight doesn't have too many pet carriers. Then must pay the fee at the check-in counter 

at the airport 

Size I Height 

Bella in Las Vegas I San Francisco I DC 

Forgot to mention! Get a soft carrier {sherpa's the absolute best) and it's fine if it's even 

10 or 11 inches high. They bend easily to fit under the seat and my cats cannot turn 

around or stand up under the seat, BUT as long as the animal is comfy while 1'n the 

carrier otherwise, it's fine, :) 

Hope it goes well! 

Bella in Las Vegas 

Just to answer a statement on here of a BAD review above my post. The person who said 

the gate agent heard her dog "whine" and demanded diability papers? That happened 

because if you travel SW, you MUST check in at the ticket counter and pay the $75 pet 

carrier fee. It can't even be paid online. Otherwise, if it is an emotional needs are other 

assistance animal, just provide your papers. BEST BAG/CARRIER? SHERPA brand hands 

down. 1 have the rolling duffel pet carrier for two cats. It's 10.5 inches high, 13 inches 

wide I think and 17"-19" deep (long), 4 wheels and a strap make it awesome for hauling 

my two cats (12 lbs and 9 lbs) through the airport, It does depend on the staff, but I just 

always tell them how often other cities let me travel with them and it always works out. 

Be POLITE and don't be afraid to beg, haha. They'll let you through, especially if you can 

produce a few tears if needed. :) 

QUESTION?!? 

Amanda in SLC 

We have a 12. pound boston terrier, she is pretty small for her breed and we want to 

take her with us to our wedding, we are a little worried about reading these reviews 

about the size of carriers. Do you suggest getting a larger carrier than the 8.5 in and 

then just pushing it down !n the seat? Are they more concerned about the size of the 

r:>~ri"'r nr th., ::thilit" nf th"' r'lr><' tn ~t:>f\r'l/t<.rn ~r<"tunr'l b.nll ::.r'l"<.-.. v.mulr'l h"' murh 

http://www. bringfldo. com /travel/airline _policies I southwest/ 

1{23/12 11:04 AM 

IN II' 

J'INI 

Page 4 of 9