### :::p i c;"T'v-:oM!O N SERVE D AUGUS T 16 , 201 0 UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . Applicatio n o f GAR Y J . LE E FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10SW0008 , successo r t o CP05SW001 3 DM S No . FAA-2010-0536 , successo r t o FAA-2005-2208 4 (Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Action ) INITIA L DECISIO N DENYIN G APPLICATIO N FO RATTORNEY' S FEE S

AN D OTHE REXPENSE S Backgroun d Thi s applicatio n unde r

th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act , 5 U.S.C . §504 , originate d i n aproceedin g i n whic h th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA " o r "th e agency" ) charge dGary J . Le e ("Gary Lee " o r "Applicant" ) with aviolatio n o f §121.58 0 o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs") , 1 4 C.F.R . §121.580 . Th e charg e stemme dfrom aSouthwes t

Airline s flight

o f Februar y 23 , 2005 , o n whic h Mr . Le e an dhi s brother , Sgt . Michae l P . Le e ("Michae l Lee") , wer e passengers . Th e Lee s sa t together . I n aseparat e actio n th e agenc y als o charge dMichae l Le e with a§121.58 0 violatio n (Docke t No . CP05SW0012 , DM S No . FAA-2005-22082) . Th e agenc y allege di n eac h matte r tha t th e responden t

ha dinterfere dwit h acrewmembe r i n th e performanc e o f

th e crewmember' s duties. ' Th e agenc y sough t acivi l penalt y o f

$ 1,100 agains t

each . Th e case s wer e consolidated . Followin g an ora l evidentiar y hearing , I issue dan Initia l Decisio n (I.D. ) i n whic h 1 foun dtha t

Michae l Le e ha dviolate d§ 121.580 . I assesse dacivi l penalt y o f $40 0 agains t him . I als o foun dtha t

th e agenc y ha dnot

prove n tha t

Gary Lee , th e Applican t here , ha dcommitte da§ 121.58 0 violation . I dismisse dth e Complain t agains t hi m (Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n v . Michae l P . Le e an dGar y J . Lee , FA A Docke t Nos . CP05SW001 2 an dCP05SW0013 , Initia l Decisio n o f Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar d C . Goodwin , serve dJul y 31 , 2006) . Neithe r part y appealed . Th e case s becam e administrativel y final.

' Section 121.58 0 states : "N o person ma y assault , threaten , intimidate , o r interfer e wit h acrewmembe

r i n the performanc e of

th e crewmember' s dutie s aboar da n aircraf t being operate dunde

r thi s part. ",!..-..ilLUUiJiil! !

. , fe'.a:^^ai.> liwiartajji M



### Gar y Lee filed a

n applicatio n fo

r attorney' s fee s andothe

r expense s unde

r th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act

("EAJ.^ " p

f "A ^ A0") , 5

f y^,C . §504 , an

dimplementing regulation s 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 14 . Thjaig^c y tol^eredi n opposition . For th e reason s set fort h below , I den

y th e application. ! Standard s Th e EAJ A require s a

n agen| y CiMKlt^tt^a

n "adversar

y adjudication " t o awar

d fee s andothe

r expense s to aprevail|ng«i^ii^§[#i|| ^ tha n th e UnitedStates ) ui^es s th e positio n o f

th e agenc y wa s "substaniially jus^fied " o r specia l circumstanc e snak

e a n awar dunjus t ( 5 U.S.C . §504(a)(l)).

j f i Fi^'Anrtfc s iBi9)lementin g th e statute essentially trac k

it s languag e (se e § 14.04) . The buftie n o f proo f tha t a n awaij dshoul dno t b e made rest s wit

h th e agenc y (1 4 qFiiP#4lil<l^. ; ' ; .^X

i . . ...;.,v r ^(.-iii

- • . • • I • 

### It i s no t dispute dtha

t th e un4^^$^ g #vii^penftlfyi^^e r constitute da

n adversar y adjudicatio n i n which th e Applicantlprevaiie 4 No r does|Qi e agenc y a^er t

tl» t "specia l circumstances " ough

t to foreclos e afe e awai^ . The pattie s diffe r o n whether

th e agenc y wa s "substantially justified " i n brialiiiigiHi^liUEllattaildi^Ih e action . An actio n i s substantially j\«|^k^wJ|it|lhiii^fti#sonabl e basi s i n law andfact . Pierc e v . Underwood , 48 7 U.S . 552 | 56 5 (19^8) ; 1 4 CF R14.04(a) ; Michae l Edwar d Wendt , FA A Orde r 93- 9 (March 25, h 993) , p . 3 . The charge s mus t b e justifi#««th e degre e tha t coul dsatisf

y areasonabl

j dispute, " o r

i f reasonabl e peopl e > action . Pierc e v . Underwood , p . 56 5 trut h fo r th e fact s alleged ; (b ) areas( j and(3 ) areasonabl e connectio n be t Orde r No . 95-2 7 (Decembe

r 19,19 S pcs^on . The stand i i s me t i f there i s a"genuin e "^Sm^-M Q the#^|^^enes s o f thfK^teste d Tl^a§|a % Agl^

^ areas(»iia|^'bBSi s i n M1^i0^^§&i0x£ ^ lega

l tiijeory ^^pstuiided ; i^ikiMati&lihe^^^Vidl ^ AirSe^vlGei^M}.y¥A A })*?p . 6i^t,0rm»0i ddenied , l?Aa%^i^fe>No . 96-1 5 (Ma y 3 , 1996) ; Smit

h v. Natit^ial Tramf^^mkm^^t y Board , 99f 2 Fs3t f 849 , 85 2 >t h 

### (8' " Cir . 1993) . -«: - 

### Failur e t o prevai l doe s no t

ra|s»#pfesal8«iil<l<a^|f

^ I t mus t no t b e assumedtha

t th e goy4iSEJBj^si|)04ii0o^0 ^ substantial^ipSlie d simply becaus e it

los t on'th e merits ! Uhrganv . Perry , 141F3 d670,68 5 (3^^^.4998) ; Ba y Are aPeac e Nav

y v. Unite dStat k

91 4 F.2 d1224,123 1 n . 4 (9" ' Cir . 199 % Michae l EdwardWendt

, FA A Orde r 93- 9 (Mte^ti ^ ^^ f

.^^gipi e agency iwcdi^ M demonstxat

e tha t it ha dasubstantia

l #|e|iig^of4^B^I^^M ^ to prov e #atd^|||i||ido n positio n wa s substantially justified . £|^p|^^^^/^^tp^27 3 ¥3 d541 , isilp^^u- . 2m\) ; Michae l Edwar dWendt , FA4(m^^

- s t unt . i ...,' • ^

, - \. , 

### The determinatio n o f

"substa4^^il||||i||^"li^b|| ^ entir e proceeding . Whethe

r "subs^^i|p|^y|i^' * ll^l^ife ^ shown vM^lti^^cHe d "o n th e basi s o f

th e administrativ e r^id j a s aE|wI](6le , Wfafl h i s mad e i]a#B4i|fl4sary adjudication ... " 5 U.S.C . §504(a ) (|) . The govMiunent' s positio n consist s fflc«t onl y o f th e complain

t but als o o f it s postur e ^serte di dsuppor^g^jQie complaint' s a&Jj^pn s durin g th e pendenc y o f

th e proceeding . J>^c% ^ v . Z/ji^s^^^S^^ ^ 31 6 F.3diS ^ 68 9 (7 *Cir . 2002) . "Substantia l justification " connote s an active , searchin g inquiry int o th e

qualit y o f evidenc e advance dan dth e overal l reasonablenes s o f th e agency' s position . Unite dBrotherhoo do f

Carpenter s an dJoiner s v . NLRB , 89 1 F.2 d1160 , 116 3 (S'* " Cir . 1990) .

' V Finding s an dConclusion s 1 findan dconclud e tha t

th e agency' s positio n i n th e underlyin g matte r wa s substantiall y justified . It s positio n wa s reasonabl y base dbot h i n la w an dfact . Th e fact s adduce dwer e reasonabl y connecte dt o th e violatio n charged . 1 wil l den y th e Applicant' s application . M y conclusio n tha t

th e agency' s positio n was substantiall y justifie drest s o n th e ide atha t reasonabl e peopl e coul ddiffer i n thei r conclusion s draw n fro mth e salien t facts . Althoug h th e Initia l Decisio n ultimatel y determine dotherwise , I conclud e tha t th e fact s reasonabl y coul dsuppor t adeterminatio n tha t

Gary Le e violate d1 4 C.F.R . §121.580 . Th e agency' s cas e i n th e underlyin g matte r reste do n it s contentio n tha t th e Applicant' s behavio r

interfere dwith th e dutie s o f th e flight attendant s sufficientl y t o mak e out aviolatio n o f

§ 121.580 . I n support , th e agenc y introduce dint o evidenc e a numbe r o f facts . It showe dtha t

th e Applican t

converse dloudl y an dpeppere dhi s speec h wit h profanity . Hi s tal k

le dt o complaint s fro mothe r passenger s - despit e sittin g severa l row s bac k

fro mal l but

on e othe r

passenge r

(othe r tha n Michae l Lee ) ~ an dwarrante dat leas t thre e visit s fro mon e o f

th e flight attendants . Thi s attendan t ha drepeatedl y asked th e Applican t

an dhi s brothe r

t o ton e dow n thei r

conversatio n an dt o refrai n fro mcursing , onl y t o hav e th e conversatio n soo n rever t t o it s objectionabl e natur e (Initia l Decisio n o f Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwi n ("I.D.") , p . 2) . Th e brothers ' tal k i n fac t becam e increasingl y hostil e (I.D. , p . 4) . Frustrate dwith th e brothers ' non-complianc e an duncomfortabl e wit h th e situatio n a s awhole , thi s attendan t consulte dth e othe r

tw o flight attendants . Th e captai n als o wa s consulted . On e o f th e othe r attendant s issue da furthe r warnin g t o Applican t

(an dhi s brother ) t o compl y with cre w instructions . Th e thir dflight

attendan t spok e t o the ma s wel l (I.D. , p . 3-4) . Accordin g t o on e o f th e flight attendants , th e cre w wa s "consume dwit h handlin g th e tw o o f them " ( 1 Tr . 148 ; I.D. , p . 4 (emphasi s supplied)) . Th e FA A contende dtha t Gary Lee' s conduc t

distracte dth e flight

attendant s fro m thei r primar y duty o f

securin g an dmaintainin g acalm , safe , an dorderl y environmen t aboar dth e aircraf

t sufficien t

t o find a§ 121.58 0 violation . I n suppor t o f thi s conclusion , testimon y suggeste dtha t th e Lees ' intensifyin g loudnes s an dhostility , ove r aflight lastin g four

hours , coul dhav e raise dasignifican t safet y threat . Th e cre w coul dnot confidentl y predic t

tha t th e Applicant' s troublesom e conduc t woul dnot

continu e t o escalate . The y wer e unwillin g t o accep t aris k o f tha t magnitud e t o th e critica l nee dt o retai n contro l o f

th e aircraft . La w an dorde r i n a n enclose dcapsul e hurtlin g forwar da t 30,00 0 fee t

mus t b e maintained , s o eve n arelativel y smal l ris k ma y not b e tolerated . Th e Applicant' s cursin g i n itsel f raise dth e possibilit y o f

aviolatio n also . Profanity alon e ca ncreat e aclimat e o f apprehensio n aboar daircraf t sufficien t t o find a§121.58 0 violatio n (l.D.,p.4) . Th e fact s showe dthat

th e Applicant' s behavio r distracte dth e crew . Testimon y suggeste dtha t

i t i n fac t "consumed " them . Al l thre e flight attendant s directl y addressed * th e Applicant' s conduct , an dth e captai n wa s consulte dabou t it . Th e ApplicaM' s lou d tal k an dcursin g appeare dt o escalate , despit e repeate dinstruction s t o stop . H e helpe d creat e asens e o f

apprehensio n amon g th e crew . Thi s evidenc e coul dwel l mak e ou t acas e o f interferenc e v^t h th e flight cre w violatin g §121.580 . ^ Whethe r Gary Lee' s interferenc e wa s consequentia l enoug h t o constitut e a violatio n i s amatte r

o f alittl e mor e o r

alittl e less . Passenge r

interferenc e case s ca n wal k afactua l fine line , abou t

whic h reasonabl e p«!)pl e ca n diffi^ . Th e agenc y i s entitlo i t o "err " o n th e sid e o f

bringin g clos e case s t o tria l t o fulfil l it s mandat e o f enforcin g an d ensurin g ai r

safety . Agains t

thi s background , I conclud e tha t th e agenc y wa s substantiall y justifie di n bringin g an dmaintaimn g th e underlyin g action . Th e FA A me t

it s burde n o f

demonstratin g tha t

i t ha dsubstantial justificatio n unde r th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t t o brin g an dt o main&i n th e underlyin g civil

penalt y proceedin g agains t Gary Lee . Fo r th e reason s stated , I den y Gar y Lee' s application. ^

ichar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

^ A fligh t attendan t also coul db e intimidate

dii ^ violatio n o f §121.58 0 b y apassenge

r addressia g he r i aa "loud, angry " voice . Evgeni

y V . Ignatov, FAA'prderNo.96-6(FebriSM y 13 , 1996) . Seen . 1,p , 1 . ^ This decisio

n become s fina l 3 0 day s afte r it s ilsuance unles s apart

y appeals o r th e FA A DecisiiVim^e

r takes revie w unde r hi s o r he r ow n initiative . 1 4 CF

R§14.28(a) . Thea|!<pca

l mus t b e eithe r (a ) il^le dt o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration, 80

0 Independenc

e Avenge , S<W. , Wtehington, D.C . 20591 , Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430, Wjllbu

r Wrigtr t Building

- Suit

e 2W1000 ; o

r (b ) delivere

d personall y o r vi aexpedite dcourie r servic e t o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 , Washington

, D.C . 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . 

## iFA A Docke t No . CP10NM000 5 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Kenneth A . Scott Blai r Hilty , Attorney s a t

La w 1471 1 Pebbl e Ben dDriv e Houston , T X 77068-292 3 TEL : 713-862-559 9 FAX : 713-868-944 4 Scott R . Morris , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W . Renton , WA 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-200 7 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 20 2 366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000, Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .