U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WAYNE R. MESSINGER, )

Complainant, )

V. ) DOCKET ID: FAA-2015-0253

CLOVER ACQUISTION CORPORTATION ) DOCKET NO: 16-15-01

d/b/a PEARLAND REGIONAL AIRPORT, )

Respondent. )

COMPLAINANT'S REBUTTAL

NOW COMES Wayne R. Messinger, Complainant, and will show the 

following:

1. Respondent’s allegation that Complainant has engaged in 

"undisputed conduct" is factually false and lacks any credible 

support. Complainant’s exclusion from the FBO is clearly unjust. 

2. In Stephen Alexander's statement (Respondent's Exibit 1, 

Paragraph 5), he alleges that Langford complained to him about 

Complainant's conduct in her employee interview in August 2013. In 

the hundreds of pages of e-mails and documents attached to 

Respondent's Answer, there is no record of any complaint made by 

Langford nor of any discussion with Complainant about any misconduct 

on his part. Alexander never informed Complainant of misconduct

while employed at the airport and the first written notice he received 
of this allegation was attached to Respondent’s Original Answer on 

April 8th, 2015. The first written complaint made by Langford was 

to the Bay Area Aero Club in December 2014. Two written statements 

contained in Respondent’s Original Answer came as a result of this 

complaint being file against Langford. One to a private 

investigator on December 22, 2014, and the other on April 7th, 2015, 

just one day before the Respondent’s Original Answer was filled. 

Both are included in the attachments to Respondent’s Original Answer. 

“CAC has consistently met its anti-harassment obligations, and 

Messinger can present no evidence to the contrary.” (Respondent at 

page 11) Respondent had an obligation to inform Complainant of the 

complaint against him and to give him the opportunity to respond. 

Respondent’s Answer is the first opportunity Complainant has had to 

respond to these new allegations. Yet, Respondent claims that 

Complainant was terminated from his employment with the airport for 

harassing conduct toward Langford. If true, it was a well-kept 

secret for the past year and a half.

3. Alexander states he reviewed the files on "Messinger's 

computer" (Respondent's Exibit 1, Paragraph 6). Complainant was not 

assigned an office computer. The reception's computer was used by 

all employees, including Langford, and was used by flight instructors 

and pilots visiting the office.

4. Alexander claims there were "surreptitious photographs" of 
Langford found on the receptionist's computer (Respondent's Exibit 

1, Paragraph 6,). Attachments to Respondent’s Original Answer 

included photos of Langford and a former female employee. The photos 

of Langford were all posed pictures, some of which Complainant has 

seen on her Facebook page. Several photos of the former employee 

were "selfies" that she left on the computer. There is no evidence 

or indication that any were "taken surreptitiously" or that any were 

taken or placed on the computer by Complainant.

5. In Langford's April 7th, 2015, statement, (Respondent's Exhibit 

2, Paragraph 3) she claims that "During my ground school instruction, 

Messinger kissed me." In her December 22, 2014, statement to a 

private investigator (Respondent's Exhibit B,) and in her written 

complaint to the Bay Area Aero Club, she claims that Complainant 

kissed her after meeting for lunch at the Red Lobster. The truth 

is, there was no kiss. Langford is clearly untruthful in her sworn 

statement. 

6. Langford claims, "I chose to work on a part-time basis to reduce 

my exposure to and contact with him. Had he not been my supervisor, 

I would have preferred to work on a full-time basis." (Respondent's 

Exhibit 2, Paragraph 6) Complainant hired Langford in May 2013 to 

work part-time. She asked for a full-time position, but Complainant 

was the only full-time employee working in Operations. Complainant 

recommended hiring Langford full-time as a manager trainee, but 
Langford told Alexander "that in order for me to work full-time, I 

would prefer for Messinger to be excluded from the FBO . . ." 

(Respondent's Exhibit 2, Paragraph 7) Because of Langford's false 

claims against Complainant, she replaced Complainant as the only 

full-time employee for the rest of 2013. 

7. Most e-mails between Complainant and Langford were personal, 

but in December 2014 she made them public to the Bay Area Aero Club 

and she now calls them "inappropriate." (Alexander's Statement, 

Paragraph 5)

8. Alexander falsely claims that Complainant was paid 

"three-months' severance pay." (Alexander's Statement, Paragraph 

8) Complainant was paid just one-month severance pay. Alexander 

falsely claims Complainant was instructed "not to enter the FBO as 

a condition of receiving the severance payment. Messinger agreed, 

and promised Dagley in my presence that he would not enter the FBO 

where Langford works." (Alexander's Statement, Paragraph 5) All

employees were released from employment on September 27th, 2013, and 

the building was locked. Complainant first learned that Langford 

was hired to work in the FBO on October 18th, 2013, when she showed 

up at the locked FBO with the new building keys. Dagley told 

Complainant, in the presence of Alexander, that he had to get his 

aircraft off the airport, not to stay out of the FBO. (See 

Complaintant's TxDOT complaint in Respondent's Exhibit B)
9. "Messinger continued his pattern of harassing behavior toward 

Langford." (Alexander's Statement, Paragraph 9) There is no 

evidence of any harassment against Langford by Complainant. Just 

this unsupported allegation. There is no evidence of "unwanted 

photographs of airport employees." There were no written complaints 

made by Langford or anyone else of "unwanted advances toward airport 

employees" or of any threats, before Complainant filed this action 

against Langford.

10. "CAC has narrowly tailored its action toward Messinger to 

prevent him from contacting and harassing Langford. . ." 

(Alexander’s Statement, Paragraph 13) The restriction was imposed 

when Langford learned the Complainant had been in the FBO on her day 

off. The ban was not to protect Langford, but in retaliation for 

the safety complaint made by Complainant against Langford.

11. HOWEVER, if protecting Leah Langford was CAC’s intent, then the 

need for that ban is now moot. Complainant has been informed that 

Langford terminated her employment at the airport on April 9th, 2015. 

She no longer works at the airport and continuing the ban against 

Complainant no longer serves a legitimate purpose. Therefore, CAC 

should rescind the letter banning Complainant from the FBO and allow 

Complainant access to the FBO the same as any other customer.

12. Respondent has failed to show that Complainant has ever harassed 

or threatened Langford. Complainant has filed a defamation lawsuit 
in state court against Langford and Texas Aviation Partners for her 

false claims. (Respondent’s Exhibit B) Langford no longer works

for Texas Aviation Partners and is no longer in need of protection 

in the FBO.

Conclusion

Complainant "made me feel uncomfortable" does not rise to the level 

of harassment, threats, or misconduct on the part of Complainant. 

PRAYER

Complainant moves to deny Respondent’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment and to Order CAC to set aside the FBO ban, allowing 

Complainant the same public services and amenities as other customers 

of the FBO.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Wayne R. Messinger

Wayne R. Messinger

P.O. Box 1710

Friendswood, TX 77549

Ginevan4@gmail.com

832-646-6868
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this 13 day of April, 2015, the 

foregoing was electronically filed via e-mail filing at 

9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@fa.gov and served via United States Postal 

Service, First Class Mail and e-mailed to the following:

James F. Parker, III

Lloyd, Gosselink, Rochelle & Topwnsend, P.C.

816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1900

Austin, TX 78701

jparker@lglawfirm.com

Attorneys for Respondent