BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON DC

__________________________________________

)

FORMAL THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AND ) 

REQUEST TO COMMENCE ENFORCEMENT ) Docket No. OST-2011-0149

PROCEEDINGS OF DON EDWARD WILLIAMS )

__________________________________________ )

SURREPLY AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OF 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Madeleine Johnson Robert W. Kneisley

 Vice President General Counsel Associate General Counsel

Justin Almand Leslie C. Abbott

 Attorney Senior Attorney

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

2702 Love Field Drive 1901 L Street, N.W.

Dallas, TX 75235-1611 Suite 640

Washington, D.C. 20036

leslie.abbott@wnco.com

(202) 263-6285

 

February 24, 2012
1

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON DC

__________________________________________

)

FORMAL THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AND ) 

REQUEST TO COMMENCE ENFORCEMENT ) Docket No. OST-2011-0149

PROCEEDINGS OF DON EDWARD WILLIAMS )

__________________________________________ )

SURREPLY AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OF 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

The parties to this proceeding have now submitted three rounds of pleadings 

since last August. All relevant evidence is in the record and the case is ripe for 

decision. Confirmation of this fact is that Mr. Williams’ Reply contains almost nothing 

new, but instead is an overly technical rehash of the same baseless arguments 

previously advanced by the Complainant. Contrary to Mr. Williams’ assertions, 

Southwest has submitted extensive evidence in its Answer, Reply and now Surreply to 

resolve all material issues of fact in the company’s favor, establishing conclusively that 

(1) Mr. Williams was denied boarding due to his belligerent, verbally abusive, and 

unsafe behavior, not due to any disability or service animal-related issue, (2) Southwest 

employees were prevented from asking Mr. Williams clarifying questions regarding his 

dog as a direct result of his excessive yelling, including profanities, toward several 

Southwest employees who repeatedly tried to assist him, and (3) documentation was 

only requested for Mr. Williams’ dog because he opted to lash out at Southwest 

employees, rather than provide credible verbal assurances that his dog was a service 

animal. At this point the record is clear: the Complaint is without merit and DOT should

dismiss it without delay. 
2

Beyond these over-arching points, Southwest will address the few new 

arguments raised by Mr. Williams in his January 30 Reply. Southwest requests leave 

from the Department to the extent necessary to file this Surreply. Good cause exists for 

granting this request, as the Surreply is narrowly tailored to address factual inaccuracies

and mischaracterizations raised in Mr. Williams’ Reply, and will thereby provide the 

Department with a more complete and accurate record upon which to base its decision.1

I. CONSISTENT WITH COMPANY POLICY AND IN GOOD FAITH, 

SOUTHWEST REFUNDED MR. WILLIAMS’ TICKET TWICE.

As stated in its Reply, Southwest began processing Mr. Williams’ refund on 

February 15, 2011, the day of the incident. Mr. Williams stated that he did not receive 

the refund and therefore Southwest re-issued it, mailing it to his counsel, the DLRC 

offices for safe keeping. The Complainant tries to argue that the reissuance of his 

refund somehow establishes that Southwest never issued it in the first place. Williams 

Reply, pp 4-5. This argument is nonsense. Southwest refunds an average of ten 

thousand tickets over the course of a week and the company has provided evidence 

that Mr. Williams’ refund was entered into the correct system for processing the day of 

the incident. See Southwest Airlines Answer, p. 4; Exhibit B, Declaration of Ellen 

MacMillen, ¶ 9; and Exhibit C, RefundPro screen shot showing Mr. Williams’ refund 

entered on 2/15/11 and issued on 2/24/11.

What possible motivation would Southwest have to withhold Mr. Williams’ 

refund? Instead, as explained in Southwest’s Reply, in response to Mr. Williams’ claim 

that he never received his refund and verification that the original check had not been 

 

1

DOT Rule 6 (14 CFR § 302.6).
3

cashed, Southwest reissued his refund. See Southwest Reply, p. 2, n.1. This is an 

example of the Complainant trying to invent an issue where none exists. 

II. SOUTHWEST HAS PROVIDED RELEVANT TRAINING MATERIALS TO 

DOT AND IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO SHARE THEM WITH MR. 

WILLIAMS.

Mr. Williams complains that Southwest has not provided him with “a shred of 

evidence by way of documentation or affidavit” of the sufficiency of its training 

programs. Williams Reply, p. 5. The simple reason for this is that Mr. Williams is not 

entitled to these proprietary materials as the DOT, not Mr. Williams, is responsible for 

reviewing airline discrimination training programs and ensuring compliance with Part 

382. As noted in its Answer and Reply, the company takes compliance with Part 382 

very seriously and devotes significant resources toward appropriate training. In fact, 

Southwest’s disability training programs far exceed DOT requirements. The Department 

has reviewed Southwest’s disability-awareness training materials and has not raised 

any concerns with Southwest regarding its program. Southwest is, of course, mindful 

that its training program must accurately and sufficiently cover all regulatory 

requirements in Section 382.141. However, Southwest is not obligated to share these 

materials with Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams further complains that “there is no evidence of Southwest’s official 

records” that Agent LaRita West and Supervisor Ellen MacMillan completed training as 

required by 14 CFR § 382.145(b). Williams Reply, p. 6. While Southwest declines to 

provide Mr. Williams with access to its confidential employee training files, Southwest’s

records confirm that Agent West received her initial disability awareness training in 2008 

and has completed recurrent disability awareness training every year since that time, 
4

including in both 2010 and 2011. In addition, as stated previously, Supervisor 

MacMillan has been a CRO since the inception of the program. Southwest’s CROs 

receive initial and recurrent disability awareness training as part of their CRO training. 

Southwest’s electronic records show that Supervisor MacMillan has received recurrent 

CRO/disability awareness training annually since 2001, including in both 2010 and 

2011. Any purported concerns regarding the sufficiency of Southwest’s disability 

awareness training for Agent West and Supervisor MacMillan should now be put to rest. 

III. SOUTHWEST’S CRO STAFFING AND TRAINING FAR EXCEEDS DOT 

REQUIREMENTS AND IS WELL KNOWN TO THE DEPARTMENT. 

In another attempt to reinterpret the facts, Mr. Williams claims that the high 

number of trained Southwest CROs at the PHX airport is somehow contradicted by PHX 

Supervisor Ellen MacMillan’s statement to Mr. Williams that “there was no one else 

available” to talk with “because it was very early in the morning.” Williams Reply, p. 6, 

quoting MacMillan Decl., ¶ 5. However, as Mr. Williams states in his Reply and as 

Supervisor MacMillan stated in her Declaration, Mr. Williams demanded to talk with her 

“boss,” not a CRO. Since Ellen, a 30-year employee, is the most senior Customer 

Service Supervisor in PHX, her “boss” would be the Manager of Customer Service or 

the PHX Station Manager, neither of whom were at the airport at the time of the 

incident. Thus, despite Mr. Williams’ creative logic, Supervisor MacMillan, a trained 

CRO herself, was not commenting on the number of CROs at the PHX airport but on 

whether or not her “boss” was available.

As discussed in detail in Southwest’s Reply, the company designates and trains 

over 700 employees to be CROs throughout its system, a substantially higher number 

than required by 14 CFR § 382.151(b). At the Phoenix Airport alone, Southwest has 45 
5

trained CROs, which means that an average of 12 are on site and available to assist 

customers at all times. This commitment to training demonstrates the importance that 

Southwest places on compliance with Part 382 and the irrelevance, as well as the 

inaccuracy, of Mr. Williams’ argument.

IV. MR. WILLIAMS, NOT HIS DOG, WAS DENIED BOARDING DUE TO HIS 

BELLIGERENT, VERBALLY ABUSIVE, AND UNSAFE BEHAVIOR.

In its Answer, Reply and now Surreply, Southwest has provided compelling 

evidence that Mr. Williams, not his dog, was denied boarding due to Mr. Williams’ 

unruly and verbally abusive behavior. Therefore, the fact that Mr. Williams flew from 

LAX to PHX on Southwest with a dog, or from PHX to LAX on US Airways with a dog, or 

the details and customer perception of Southwest’s pet policy are irrelevant. The 

bottom line is that, in this particular case, the facts show conclusively that Mr. Williams 

was denied boarding as a direct result of his verbally abusive and unsafe conduct, 

including profanities and excessive yelling, toward several Southwest employees who 

repeatedly tried to assist him, rather than for any disability-related reason. Southwest 

did not violate the ACAA or Part 382 in its treatment of Mr. Williams but instead 

appropriately denied him boarding based on his belligerent behavior and in accordance 

with Southwest’s Contract of Carriage. 
6

CONCLUSIOsN

For the reasons stated above and in Southwest’s prior submissions, the 

Complaint is without merit and should be dismissed without delay. 

Respectfully submitted,

______________________

Leslie C. Abbott

February 24, 2012