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 )

__________________________________________ )

ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS 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

bob.kneisley@wnco.com

(202) 263-6284

 

September 26, 2011
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 )

__________________________________________ )

ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS OF 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

Southwest Airlines Co. (“Southwest”) hereby files this Answer and Motion To 

Dismiss in response to the formal third-party complaint submitted to the Department by 

the Disability Rights Legal Center on behalf of Don Edwards Williams dated August 12, 

2011.1 The Complaint alleges that Southwest violated the Air Carrier Access Act 

(“ACAA”) and the Department’s implementing regulations in 14 CFR Part 382 by 

discriminating against Mr. Williams based on his disability when Southwest refused to 

allow him to travel with his claimed service animal. The Complaint requests that the 

Department order Southwest to (1) implement “policies and procedures to prevent 

discrimination and reasonably accommodate passengers with a disability,” (2) provide

“adequate training and education” to Southwest’s Phoenix Airport employees and Dallas 

Customer Service and Claims Department personnel on disability rights, including 

effectively assisting passengers with a disability, and (3) pay damages to Mr. Williams,

including a refund for his ticket, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 1 Southwest requested and received an extension of time from the Principal Deputy Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings to file its Answer to the Complaint until September 26, 2011. See letters of 

Southwest counsel to this docket dated August 25, 2011 and September 14, 2011. 
2

The Complaint makes serious allegations. Strict compliance with the 

Department’s disability regulations is an important priority for Southwest, and the 

company devotes significant resources to ensuring that it provides non-discriminatory 

access to all members of the disability community. However, 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. Therefore, the 

Complaint should be dismissed. 

I. MR. WILLIAMS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BOARDING BY A 

SOUTHWEST COMPLAINT RESOLUTION OFFICIAL (“CRO”) AS A 

DIRECT RESULT OF HIS DISRUPTIVE AND VERBALLY ABUSIVE 

BEHAVIOR, NOT DUE TO HIS DISABILITY. 

On the morning of February 15, 2011, Mr. Williams, traveling in a power

wheelchair and accompanied by a large dog, approached a full service kiosk at the 

Southwest ticket counter at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to rebook his flight to Los 

Angeles. Although not mentioned in Mr. Williams’ Complaint, he was in fact first 

assisted by Southwest Customer Service Agent LaRita West who pulled up his flight 

information. While assisting Mr. Williams, LaRita was in a position to closely observe 

his dog. Based on its appearance, LaRita reasonably concluded that the dog was a pet

rather than a service animal. In addition to being “unclean,” the dog had a red bandana 

and a rope around its neck, no leash or collar, barked at employees, and did not sit 
3

obediently at the side of Mr. Williams’ wheelchair. See Exhibit A, Declaration of LaRita 

West (hereafter West Decl.) at ¶ 4 and Exhibit B, Declaration of Ellen MacMillan 

(hereafter Macmillan Decl.) at ¶ 4. Based on her observations, LaRita informed Mr. 

Williams that the dog would not be able to travel with him because the animal exceeded 

the size limitations of Southwest’s pet carriage policy. Mr. Williams immediately became

“quite angry,” insisting that the dog was a service animal. West Decl. at ¶ 5. In the face 

of Mr. Williams’ escalating temper, LaRita asked for assistance from a Southwest 

Complaint Resolution Official (“CRO”) in accordance with 14 CFR § 382.117. Id.

Ellen MacMillan, a 30-year Southwest employee, the most senior Customer 

Service Supervisor in Phoenix and an experienced CRO, came over to try to defuse the 

situation. She repeatedly asked Mr. Williams to “please calm down” and to “lower his 

voice” so that they could try to “resolve the matter.” MacMillan Decl. at ¶ 6. However, 

nothing worked. Ellen states that “Mr. Williams would not allow me to talk or answer any 

of his questions as he continued to berate me personally.” MacMillan Decl. at ¶ 5. At 

one point during her “conversation” with Mr. Williams, Ellen even contemplated calling 

the airport police for assistance, but instead asked Mr. Williams one more time to please 

refrain from making a scene. MacMillan Decl. at ¶ 6. However, Mr. Williams did not 

calm down despite these repeated attempts. Therefore, Ellen, as a Supervisor and 

CRO, made the decision to deny Mr. Williams boarding based on his abusive, 

combative, and unsafe behavior. Ellen states that she did:

“everything I could to diffuse his anger and to find a way to say yes to 

allowing him to travel. I was convinced that denying him boarding was the 

appropriate action at the time, because I felt that if he could not calm down 

while speaking with me it would be dangerous to put him on a flight. I felt 

that he would be potentially disruptive on the aircraft. My concern was for 
4

all our Employees involved and it appeared to me Mr. Williams was too 

angry and agitated to fly.” MacMillan Decl. at ¶ 7.

Contrary to statements in the Complaint, Ellen did not “snatch” anything from Mr. 

Williams or “follow[ ] him around and instruct[ ] other Southwest employees not to assist 

him” as Mr. Williams alleges. Williams Complaint at ¶ 12, 13; West Decl. at ¶ 6;

MacMillan Decl. at ¶ 8. Instead, “Mr. Williams proceeded to leave and move on to the 

US Airways side of the airport, continuing with the loud, abusive language from across 

the airport.” West Decl. at ¶ 6; MacMillan Decl. at ¶ 8. Southwest’s records show that 

the company began processing a refund of Mr. Williams’ ticket the day of the incident, 

February 15, and that the refund was approved on February 24 and mailed to Mr. 

Williams on February 25, in the regular course of business. MacMillan Decl. at ¶ 9;

Exhibit C. 

II. RESPONSES TO THE COMPLAINT’S SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS

Southwest denies all assertions of wrongdoing in the Complaint. Pursuant to 14 

CFR § 302.408(b), Southwest’s responses to each specific allegation are as follows: 

1. ALLEGATION: “Southwest Violated Mr. Williams’ Right to Travel with a 

Service Animal.” 

 RESPONSE: SOUTHWEST DENIES THIS ALLEGATION. Mr. Williams was 

not denied the right to travel with a service animal. Instead, Southwest denied Mr. 

Williams boarding based solely on his improper and unsafe behavior. As attested to by 

Southwest employees who were involved and clearly remember the incident with Mr. 

Williams, he was verbally abusive and refused to calm down, despite repeated attempts 
5

by Southwest employees, making him a potential danger to other passengers and 

unsuitable for air travel. Moreover, due to the fact that “Mr. Williams would not allow me 

[CRO Ellen MacMillan] to talk or answer any of his questions,” no useful communication 

was possible with Mr. Williams and Southwest employees were not able to ask Mr. 

Williams any clarifying questions about his dog. MacMillan Decl. at ¶ 5. CRO Ellen 

asked for documentation only after observing credible visual cues that strongly 

suggested the dog was not a trained service animal, as discussed above and in 

compliance with 14 CFR § 382.117. 

While Part 382 protects the right of a qualified individual with a disability to travel 

with a service animal, it does not require airlines to allow anyone to travel who exhibits 

serious concerns for passenger or flight safety. Specifically, Southwest’s Contract of 

Carriage states that the carrier “may refuse to transport...any Passenger...whose 

conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, 

intimidating, violent ....” See Exhibit D, Article 6(a)(1) and (8)(i). Mr. Williams’ behavior 

fell squarely within this description and Southwest therefore appropriately and lawfully 

refused to transport him. 

2. ALLEGATION: “Southwest Employees Took Unlawful Adverse Action Against 

Mr. Williams.” 

 RESPONSE: SOUTHWEST DENIES THIS ALLEGATION. Southwest 

employees did not take adverse action against Mr. Williams based on his disability. 

Instead, Mr. Williams was lawfully denied boarding because his behavior was unsafe 

and incompatible with air travel. Moreover, as both Southwest Agent LaRita West and 

Southwest Supervisor Ellen MacMillan attest, nothing was seized from Mr. Williams. 
6

In addition, Southwest promptly refunded Mr. Williams’ ticket. Southwest’s records show 

that the company requested a refund for Mr. Williams on February 15, the same day as 

the incident, and that the refund was approved on February 24 and mailed on February 

25, in the regular course of business. MacMillan Decl. at ¶ 9; Exhibit C.

3. ALLEGATION: “Southwest Failed to Provide Written Explanation for the 

Denial of His Service Animal to Mr. Williams And Violated His Right to a ‘Complaint 

Resolution Official.’”

 RESPONSE: SOUTHWEST DENIES THESE ALLEGATIONS. As explained 

in detail above, Mr. Williams, not his dog, was denied boarding for reasons unrelated to 

his disability. Therefore, written explanation pursuant to 14 CFR § 382.117(g) was not 

required. In addition, Customer Service Agent LaRita West immediately called for 

Complaint Resolution Official (“CRO”) Ellen MacMillan when Mr. Williams became 

verbally abusive. Neither LaRita nor Ellen could get Mr. Williams to stop yelling, lower 

his voice or calm down long enough to provide an opportunity to explain that Ellen was 

a CRO. In addition, Mr. Williams also spoke with a Southwest Customer Support & 

Services CRO in Southwest’s Customer Relations Department between February 15 

and 18, just a few days after the incident. 

4. ALLEGATION: “Southwest Is in violation of Its Duty to Train Its Personnel on 

the ACAA and Its Implementing Regulations.”

 RESPONSE: SOUTHWEST DENIES THIS ALLEGATION. Southwest 

devotes significant and appropriate resources to employee training on the requirements 

of the Air Carrier Access Act and compliance with Part 382. Part 382 requires that air 
7

carriers develop a program that will result in each covered employee receiving refresher 

training at least once every three years. Southwest far exceeds this requirement by 

providing Part 382 training annually. In addition, Southwest employees who are 

designated as CROs also receive annual recurrent training and are trained to be 

thoroughly familiar with the requirements of Part 382 as well as the company’s specific 

procedures. Finally, in accordance with Part 382 Section 141, both of the employees 

with whom Mr. Williams interacted at the Phoenix Airport, LaRita West and Ellen

MacMillan, had completed initial and recurrent disability-related training, including 

sensitivity training and equal treatment of Customers, in 2010.

Relying solely on the number of Southwest passengers who have filed 

complaints with DOT related to service animals, the Complaint also asserts that 

Southwest does not provide adequate training and “allow[s] systematic and pervasive 

acts of discrimination against persons with disability.” The Complaint fails to point out 

that, among the carriers identified in the Complaint’s “Appendix A,” Southwest had the 

lowest ratio of disability related complaints in 2007, 2008, and 2010. In 2009, only one 

other airline had a lower complaint ratio than Southwest. See Exhibit E. These data 

demonstrate the opposite of what the Complaint asserts, i.e., that Southwest’s 

performance in handling disabled passengers is unparalleled in the airline industry. 

This outstanding achievement is the result of Southwest’s unfettered commitment to 

fully train its employees and to provide all customers, including those with disabilities, 

with the highest level of customer service. 

Southwest’s commitment to offering the highest level of customer service to 

passengers with disabilities is further demonstrated on southwest.com where 


EXHIBIT A


EXHIBIT B
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 )

__________________________________________ )

DECLARATION OF ELLEN MACMILLAN

I, Ellen MacMillan, hereby state the following:

1. I am a Southwest Airlines Co. (“Southwest”) Customer Service Supervisor 

at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, a position I have held since 1982. 

2. I am also trained as a Complaint Resolution Official (“CRO”) and have 

held this designation since inception of the CRO program. I completed both initial and 

recurrent disability-related training, including sensitivity training and equal treatment of 

Customers, in 2010.

3. I vividly recall my encounter with Mr. Don Edward Williams on February 

15, 2011. Mr. Williams came to the ticket counter in a power wheelchair accompanied 

by a large dog early in the morning and was initially helped by Customer Service Agent 

(“CSA”) LaRita West. I became involved with Mr. Williams when LaRita requested my 

assistance.

4. I observed Mr. Williams’ dog and it did not look or act like a service 

animal. It had a rope and a red bandana around its neck, it did not have a leash or 

collar and it was unclean and disheveled. The dog also barked at employees and did 

not remain attentively at the side of Mr. Williams’ wheelchair. Overall, the dog did not 
2

appear to have the temperament of a trained service dog. Nevertheless, I wanted to see 

if Mr. Williams could give me credible verbal assurances that his dog was in fact a 

service animal so that he could continue his travel with the dog as planned.

5. I tried to introduce myself as the Customer Service Supervisor on duty but 

Mr. Williams continued to yell insults about Southwest, the employees, me, as well as 

the way we conduct business. He immediately told me that I could not ask him about 

his dog since this was the basis of his discussion with LaRita. I did my best to diffuse 

the situation but to no avail. Mr. Williams would not allow me to talk or answer any of 

his questions as he continued to berate me personally. He requested to talk to my 

boss, and I explained to him that there was no one else currently available because it 

was very early in the morning. 

6. After continued conversation and repeated requests for Mr. Williams to 

“please calm down,” “lower your voice,” so that we could try to resolve the matter, 

nothing worked. I contemplated calling the local airport police for assistance, but 

instead asked Mr. Williams one more time to “please refrain from making a scene.” In 

total, the interaction lasted for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. Ultimately, I opted to 

deny Mr. Williams boarding based on his improper and unsafe behavior. 

7. As a CRO, I was doing everything I could to diffuse Mr. Williams’ anger 

and to find a way to say yes to allowing him to travel. I was convinced that denying him 

boarding was the appropriate action at the time, because I felt that if he could not calm 

down while speaking with me it would be dangerous to put him on a flight. I felt that he 

could be potentially disruptive on the aircraft. My concern was for all of our employees 

and it appeared to me Mr. Williams was too angry and agitated to fly.

EXHIBIT C
REFUNDPRO SCREEN SHOT SHOWING REFUND ISSUED TO MR. DON EDWARDS WILLIAMS

ON FEBRUARY 24, 2011
EXHIBIT D
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE — PASSENGER

6. Acceptance of Passengers

a. Refusal to Transport

General. Carrier may, in its sole discretion, refuse to transport, or may remove from 

an aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below. 

The fare of any Passenger denied transportation or removed from Carrier’s aircraft 

en route under the provisions of this Article will be refunded in accordance with 

Article 9 of this Contract of Carriage. The sole recourse of any Passenger refused 

transportation or removed en route will be the recovery of the refund value of the 

unused portion of his Ticket. Under no circumstances shall Carrier be liable to any 

Passenger for any type of special, incidental, or consequential damages.

(1) Safety. Whenever such action is necessary, with or without notice, for reasons 

of aviation safety.

(2) Force Majeure Event: Whenever advisable due to Force Majeure Events 

outside of Carrier’s control, including, without limitation acts of God, 

meteorological events, such as storms, rain, wind, fire, fog, flooding, 

earthquakes, haze, or volcanic eruption. It also includes, without limitation, 

government action, disturbances or potentially volatile international conditions, 

civil commotions, riots, embargoes, wars, or hostilities, whether actual, 

threatened, or reported, strikes, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout or any other 

labor related dispute involving or affecting Carrier’s service, mechanical 

difficulties by entities other than Carrier, Air Traffic Control, the inability to 

obtain fuel, airport gates, labor, or landing facilities for the flight in question or 

any fact not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by Carrier.

(3) Government Request or Regulation. Whenever such action is necessary to 

comply with any Federal Aviation Regulation or other applicable government 

regulation, or to comply with any governmental request for emergency 

transportation in connection with the national defense.

(4) Interference with Flight Crew. Passengers who interfere or attempt to interfere 

with any member of the flight crew in carrying out its duties. 

(5) Search of Passenger or Property. Any Passenger who refuses to permit the 

search of his person or property by Carrier or an authorized government 

agency for explosives, hazardous materials, contraband, or concealed, deadly, 

or dangerous weapons or articles.
(6) Proof of Identity. Any Passenger who refuses upon request to produce positive 

identification acceptable to the Carrier. 

(7) Incompatible Medical Requirements. Carrier will refuse to transport persons 

requiring the following medical equipment or services, which either are not 

authorized or cannot be accommodated on Carrier’s aircraft: medical oxygen 

for use onboard the aircraft except FAA-approved and Carrier accepted 

Portable Oxygen Concentrators (POCs), incubators, medical devices requiring 

electrical power from the aircraft, or travel on a stretcher. 

(8) Comfort and Safety. Carrier may refuse to transport, or remove from the 

aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below as 

may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such Passenger or other 

Passengers and crew members:

(i) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, 

offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, 

obscene, or patently offensive.

(ii) Persons who are barefoot and older than five years of age, unless 

required due to a disability.

(iii) Persons who are unable to occupy a seat with the seatbelt fastened.

(iv) Persons who are unwilling to comply with seating requirements under 

Carrier’s customer of size policy as specified in Article 4a(3)(i). Carrier’s 

failure to enforce or decision not to enforce its customer of size policy for a 

Passenger traveling on a given flight does not preclude Carrier from 

enforcing the policy with respect to that Passenger on a subsequent flight.

(v) Persons who appear to the Carrier to be intoxicated or under the influence 

of drugs.

(vi) Persons who are known by the Carrier to have a communicable disease 

or infection and whose condition poses a direct threat as defined in 

CFR § 382.3 to the health or safety of others.

(vii) Persons who have an offensive odor, unless caused by a disability.

(viii) Any person who cannot be transported safely for any reason.

(9) Weapons. Persons who wear or have on or about their person concealed or 

unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that Carrier 

will carry Passengers who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 

49 CFR § 1544.219.
(10) Prisoners. Prisoners (persons charged with or convicted of a crime) under 

escort of law enforcement personnel; other persons in the custody of law 

enforcement personnel who are being transported while wearing manacles or 

other forms of restraint; persons brought into the airport in manacles or other 

forms of restraint; persons who have resisted escorts; or escorted persons who 

express to Carrier an objection to being transported on the flight.

(11) Non-Smoking Policy. Persons who are unwilling or unable to abide by Carrier's 

non-smoking rules, and federal laws prohibiting smoking onboard the aircraft as 

established in 49 USC § 41706.

(12) Misrepresentation. Persons who have made a misrepresentation which 

becomes evident upon arrival at the airport, and the misrepresentation 

renders the Person unacceptable for Carriage.

(13) Prohibition on Solicitation. Persons who refuse to comply with instructions 

given by Carrier prohibiting the solicitation of items for sale or purchase, 

including airline Tickets, reduced-rate travel passes, or travel award certificates.
EXHIBIT E
 All Disability-Related Airline Complaints 2007-2010*

Airline Year Enplanements Complaints Ratio**

American 2007 98,165,082.00 3187 3.246571933

Continental 2007 49,005,712.00 499 1.018248648

Delta 2007 73,051,467.00 2532 3.466049491

Northwest 2007 53,736,983.00 1403 2.610864849

United 2007 68,386,110.00 1091 1.595353208

US Airways 2007 57,870,936.00 1312 2.267113841

Southwest 2007 101,991,150.00 698 0.684373105

Airline Year Enplanements Complaints Ratio

American 2008 92,772,044 2160 2.328287604

Continental 2008 46,946,338 457 0.973451859

Delta 2008 71,727,986 2585 3.603893186

Northwest 2008 48,920,621 1138 2.326217404

United 2008 63,149,339 1313 2.079198327

US Airways 2008 54,323,815 1591 2.928733926

Southwest 2008 102,041,801 780 0.764392624

Airline Year Enplanements Complaints Ratio

American 2009 85,720,516 1973 2.301666033

Continental 2009 43,995,409 822 1.868376766

Delta 2009 67,852,554 2377 3.503184272

Northwest 2009 41,116,559 1276 3.103372537

United 2009 56,070,670 1119 1.995695789

US Airways 2009 51,016,029 1784 3.496940148

Southwest 2009 101,417,913 1993 1.96513608

Airline Year Enplanements Complaints Ratio

American 2010 86,129,130 2308 2.679697334

Continental 2010 43,543,539 1026 2.356262315

Delta 2010 126,423,869 3742 2.959884102

Northwest 2010 N/A N/A N/A

United 2010 54,034,924 1413 2.614975456

US Airways 2010 51,853,197 2769 5.340075753

Southwest 2010 106,307,267 2020 1.90015232

* Appendix A to Part 382-Report of Disability-Related Complaint Data, U.S. DOT, 

located at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/publications/gateway1.htm

** Ratio of complaints per 100,000 passengers enplaned
EXHIBIT F