### 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 t hat Complainant has engaged in

" undisputed conduct" is factually false and l acks 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 ab out any misconduct on his part. Alexander never informed Complainant of misconduct while employed at the airport and the first written notice he receivedof this allegation was attached to Respondent’s Original Answer on

April 8th, 2015. The first writte n 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, 20 14, 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 me t its a nti

- harassment obligations, and Messinger can pres ent 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

res pond 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 revi ewed 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" ofLangford 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 em ployee. 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 Decembe r 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

m y 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
Ex hibit 2, Paragraph 6) Comp lainant 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 tra inee, butLangford 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 Complaina nt 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,
P aragraph 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 th e 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 Septe mber 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 Alexand er, 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 "unwan ted 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. H OWEVER, if protecting Leah Langf ord wa s 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 b an against Complainant no longer serves a legitimate purpose. Therefore, CAC should rescind the letter banning Complainant from the FBO and allow Complaina nt 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 lawsuitin 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, Suit e 1900 Austin, TX 78701 jparker@lglawfirm.com Attorneys for Respondent