T'Tif- M 

### SERVE D MARC H 17 , 201 0 UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION ,

Complainant , TALA T TAHAIRA ,

Respondent . FA A DOCKE T No . CP09NM000 6 (Civi l Penalt y Action )

DM S No . FAA-2009-027 3

INITIA L DECISIO N O FADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N Found : 1 ) Ms . Tahair aviolate d1 4 C.F.R . §§121.58 0 an d121.585(c ) an d4 9 U.S.C .

§4631 8 a s charge di n th e complaint ; 2 ) Ms . Tahair ai s hereb y assesse dacivi l penalt y o f $6,000 . I . Th e Complain t

an dAnswe r Thi s i s acivi l penalt y matte r i n th e jurisdictio n o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant, " "FAA, " o r "agency") . I t

concern s allegation s o f passenge r misconduc t

agains t Ms . Tala t

Tahair a("Tahaira " o r

"Respondent") . Th e cas e wa s assigne dt o th e undersigne dadministrativ e la w judg e ("AU" ) b y Notic e date dApri l 3 , 2009 . Ms . Tahair awa s apassenge r aboar dJetBlu e Airline s fligh t 8 3 o n Novembe r

8 , 2008 . Th e fligh t

operate dnonsto p fro mNew York City' s Joh n F . Kermedy Internationa l Airpor t ("JFK" ) t o Seattle , WA . Th e FA A brough t aComplain t

agains t Ms . Tahaira , chargin g tha t

sh e violate dtw o Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs" ) an daFedera l statute . Th e Complain t

allege s tha t

Ms . Tahair aviolate d1 ) sectio n 12L58 0 o f th e FARs , 1 4 C.F.R . §121.580 , i n tha t sh e "assaulted , threatened , intimidate do r interfere dwith crewmember s i n th e performanc e o f thei r dutie s aboar dan aircraf

t bein g operated " (Complaint , §111 , ^l.a) ; 2 ) sectio n 121.585(c ) o f th e FARs , 1 4 C.F.R . §121.585(c) , i n failin g t o compl y wit h th e instruction s o f acrewmembe r

regardin g exi t

seatin grestriction s (§111 , lll.b) ; an d3 ) 4 9 U.S.C . §4631 8 (§111 , P) . Tha t statut e makes a n individua l wh o assault s o r threaten s t o assaul t

amembe r

o f afligh t cre w liabl e for

acivi l penalt y o f

u p t o $25,000 . Th e agenc y request s atota l civi l penalt y o n th e thre e charge s o f $6,000 . Ms . Tahair adenie dth e charges . Ms . Tahaira' s Answe r denie s violatin g eithe r

* federal la w o r

an y FAR . Sh e assert s tha t fligh t attendants "raciall y harassed , humiliated , an dverball y abused " he r

(Answer , §1 , ^1) . "Ha dMs . Tahair anot bee n o f South Asia n descent, " th e Answe r

contends , "thi s inciden t

woul dneve r

hav e occurred. " (§11,116) . Th e Answe r

als o assert s tha t

du e t o th e "frivolous " an d"improperl y motivated " natur e o f th e Complaint , Ms . Tahair ai s entitle dt o "[rjeasonabl e attorney' s fee s for havin g t o respon dt o thi s imprope r

action " an d"[a ] ful l an dformal apology. " (§111 , %5 ; se e als o Respondent' s Posthearin g Brief , p . 2 ("th e Agenc y owe[s ] Ms . Tahair aa n apolog y fo r puttin g he r

throug h th e inciden t

an dthi s process")) . I hel dahearin g o n Ma y 2 7 an d28 , 2009 , i n Seattle . Brief s hav e bee n file dan d th e matte r

no w i s read y fo r

decision . Procedura l rule s applicabl e t o thi s proceedin g ar e containe di n Subpar t G o f Par t 1 3 o f volum e 1 4 o f

th e Cod e o f

Federa l Regulation s ("C.F.R.") , entitle dRule s o f Practic e i n FA A Civi l Penalt y Actions , 1 4 C.F.R . §13.20 1 e t seq . ("th e Rules") . Fo r

th e agenc y t o prevail , i t mus t establis h proo f

o f th e violation s allege db y apreponderanc e o f th e reliable , probative , an dsubstantial evidence . 1 4 C.F.R . §§13.22 3 an d224(a) ; Toyot a Moto r Sales , FA A Orde r

No . 94-28 , pp . 6- 7 (Septembe r 30 , 1994) , 199 4 FA A Lexi s 275 , p . 10 . (Th e mor e rigorou s "beyon dareasonabl e doubt " standar dt o whic h th e governmen t i s hel di n crimina l case s doe s not appl y t o FA A civi l penalt y cases . See , e.g. , Envirosolve , LLC , FA A Orde r No . 2006- 2 (Februar y 7 , 2006) , 200 6 W L 465371 , p . 4 , pet . fo r revie w dismisse dsu b nom . Envirosolve , LL C v . FAA , 200 7 W L 27378 0 (D.C . Cir . Januar y 20 , 2007)) . Ms . Tahair aha s th e burde n o f provin g an y affirmativ e defens e b y th e sam e standar dt o whic h th e governmen t i s hel di n provin g it s case . 1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.224(c) ; America n Ai r

Network , FA A Orde r

No . 2008-1 0 (October

7 , 2008) , 200 8 W L 4948487 , p . 13 . I stres s tha t

thi s cas e i s abou t

th e conduc t

o f Ms . Tahair aaboar dJetBlu e fligh t 83 . Mor e specifically , i t

abou t whethe r Ms . Tahaira' s action s durin g tha t fligh t violate d provision s o f

th e FAR s an daFedera l statut e a s se t fort h above . I hol dtha t

Complainan t

prove dit s cas e o n al l count s fo r th e reason s se t

fort h below . N o mitigatin g factor s wer e present . Th e fact s an dcircumstance s warran t an assessmen t

agains t Ms . Tahair ao f

$6,000 .

' Citation s fro

mth e transcrip t

o f th e first da y o f th e hearin g wil

l begi n wit h " 1 Tr." ; citation s fro

mth e secon dday , " 2 Tr. " Citation s t

o the brief s wil l b e "Compl . Br. " fo

r Complainant' s Posthearing Brief , an d "Resp . Br. " fo

r Respondent' s Posthearin g Brief . Complainan

t chos e not t o fil e aRebutta

l Brief .II . Discussio n A . Backgroun d Th e Respondent , Tala t

Tahaira , live s i n th e Seattl e area . Sh e was bo mi n present day Pakista n ( 2 Tr . 441 , 512) . Ms . Tahair astate dtha t sh e ha s bee n aresiden t

i n th e * Unite dState s for

te n year s ( 2 Tr . 443 ) an di s an America n citizen . A t he r request , a certifie dcour t

interprete r

i n Urdu , alanguag e o f

th e regio n o f

he r origin , wa s provide dt o translat e question s for

he r an dt o translat e he r

response s {see 1 Tr . 4 ; 2 Tr . 440) . A t th e tim e o f

th e fligh t whic h le dt o thi s proceeding , Ms . Tahair awas 6 9 year s ol d( 2 Tr . 511-12) . A t

th e hearin g sh e appeare dsligh t an dfrail . Sinc e 2000 , accordin g t o an unswor n physician' s record , sh e ha s bee n treate dfo r severa l ailments , includin g diabetes , hypertension , arthritis , an dan unspecifie dhear t condition . Ms . Tahair astate d tha t sh e wa s takin g severa l medication s at th e tim e o f

th e fligh t (Exh . R-2 ; 2 Tr . 451-53 , 504-05 , 507-08) . Ms . Tahair atestifie dtha t at tha t tim e " I coul dwalk , I wa s okay," ^ but sh e entere dan dexite dth e aircraf t i n awheelchair , accordin g t o th e fligh t attendant s (see , e.g. , 1 Tr . 245) . Ms . Tahair atestifie dtha t sh e flie s t o Lahore , Pakistan , ever y year , havin g ahom e an dchildre n ther e ( 2 Tr . 443) . Sh e adde dtha t sh e ha s bee n travelin g fo r twent y year s ( 2 Tr . 458 , 478) . I t

i s th e final le g o f

Tahaira' s retur n fligh t

fro mLahor e t o Seattl e i n 200 8 whic h i s immediatel y german e t o thi s proceeding . Accordin g t o Ms . Tahaira' s testimony , th e firs t tw o segment s o f

he r journe y proceede da s scheduled . Sh e fle w fro mLahor e t o Dubai , asix-hou r flight . Followin g a two-hou r layove r i n Dubai , sh e fle w t o New York City' s JF K

Airport . Tha t

le g too k te n hours . A t JF K sh e misse dhe r

planne dcormectio n (o n America n Airlines ) t o Seattle . A s aresult , Ms . Tahair asaid , sh e ha dt o wai t an additiona l te n hour s befor e boardin g JetBlu e o n anonsto p fligh t

t o Seattl e ( 2 Tr . 458-60 ; Resp . Br. , pp . 2-3) . B y the n i t wa s evening , loca l tim e ( 1 Tr . 154) . A t leas t 2 8 hour s - mor e tha n on e ful l da y - ha delapse dsinc e Ms . Tahair aboarde dhe r

initia l fligh t

t o Duba i i n Pakistan. ^ JetBlue' s aircraf

t wa s an Airbu s A320 . I t containe dtwenty-fiv e row s o f si x seat s each , constitutin g thre e seat s o n eithe r sid e o f asingle aisl e ( 1 Tr . 148 , 185-86) . Th e cre w consiste do f

apilot , firs t

officer , an dthre e fligh t

attendants . Th e fligh t

wa s slightl y mor e tha n hal f

ful l ( 2 Tr . 316) . Ms . Tahair awas assigne dsea t 9 F ( 1 Tr . 191 ; 2 Tr . 357

- 58 , 461) . Amon g th e twenty-fiv e row s ar e exi t row s situate dove r

th e wing . On e i s designatedro w 1 1 ( 2 Tr . 361) . Federa l regulation s stipulate tha t passenger s seate di n exi t

^ 2 Tr . 448 . Unles s otherwis e noted , Ms . Tahaira' s testimon y i s a s rendere di

n Englis h b

y th e translator . ' Ms . Tahair

athough t tha t mor e tim e ha delapsed . Sh

e testifie dthat , a

t apoin t early i n th e Ne w York

Seattl e flight , sh

e alread y ha dbee n travelin g fo

r 3 6 hours . 2 Tr . 456 . I

t i s unclea r how she arriveda

t tha t total .row s b e capabl e o f performin g dutie s require di n an emergency . Passenger s mus t mee t certai n criteria . The y must , amon g othe r things , hav e sufficien t

mobility , strength , o r dexterit y t o operat e emergency-exi t mechanisms ; understan dora l command s give n b y a crewmembe r

i n English ; an dspeak

Englis h wel l enoug h t o giv e ora l command s t o othe r passenger s (1 4 C.F.R . §121.585(b) ; Exh . C-1 0 (excerp t fro mJetBlu e Fligh t

Attendan t Manual) , pp . 2-4 ; 1 Tr . 62 , 178 , 186-88 , 229 ; 2 Tr . 415) . B . Summar y o f

On-Boar dWitnesses ' Testimon y 1 . Laur aClampit t Laur aClampit t

wa s th e firs t

percipien t

witnes s t o testify . Ms . Clampit t wa s an America n Airline s fligh t

attendant , avetera n o f

1 7 years ' service , wh o wa s travelin g o n thi s fligh t a s apassenger . Sh e wa s commutin g hom e ( 1 Tr . 146-47 , 160) . Ms . Clampit t

sat i n ro w 11 , an exi t

row . On e o f

th e fligh t attendants , knowin g tha t Ms . Clampit t

wa s als o afligh t

attendant , ha drequeste dtha t sh e si t there . Ms . Clampit t occupie dawindo w seat , o n th e lef t sid e o f th e aircraf

t a s on e face s forward towar dth e cockpi t

( 1 Tr . 149-150 , 168) . After takeoff , Ms . Clampit t

notice dapassenger , late r identifie da s Ms . Tahaira , mov e t o an unoccupie dban k o f seat s directl y opposit e her . Thi s ban k o f seat s als o wa s a n exi t row . Ms . Clampit t

observe dan dhear dfligh t attendants as k

Ms . Tahair aif

sh e wa s capabl e o f

handlin g responsibilitie s associate dwith sittin g there . Ms . Tahair areplie d i n th e negative , Ms . Clampit t said . Ms . Clampit t

hear dMs . Tahair aexplai n t o th e cre w member s tha t

sh e ha dmove dther e simpl y becaus e sh e wa s tire dan dnot feelin g well . Sinc e Ms . Tahair adi dnot mee t th e criteri afor

sittin g i n tha t

row , th e fligh t

attendants tol dher , i t

wa s necessar y fo r

he r t o move . Ms . Tahair areturne dt o he r assigne dsea t

tw o row s forwar d( 1 Tr . 150-51 , 154 , 163 , 180) . A s soo n a s th e fligh t

attendant s lef

t th e aisle , Ms . Clampit t

observe dMs . Tahair a retur n t o th e exi t

row . Ms . Clampit t

agai n hear dth e fligh t

attendant s as k

he r t o move . Ms . Clampit t

hear dMs . Tahair aas k

wh y sh e ha dt o move ; Ms . Tahair aexplaine dthat sh e wa s tire dan djus t

wante dt o sleep . Ms . Tahair areturne dt o he r origina l sea t

again , bu t cam e bac k

t o th e exi t

ro w at leas t on e mor e time , accordin g t o th e witness . Eac h tim e Ms . Tahair aentere dth e exi t row , Ms . Clampit t

said , sh e la y dow n ( 1 Tr . 173) . A t

som e poin t

th e fligh t attendant s flippe dove r

th e exit-ro w sea t

cushion s i n a

n apparen t attemp t t o thwar t Ms . Tahaira , bu t

Ms . Tahair areturne donc e agai n ( 1 Tr . 151) . Ms . Clampit t

sa w Ms . Tahair aente r

an dleav e th e exi t

ro w thre e time s i n al l ( 1 Tr . 172) . Ms . Clampit t

describe dMs . Tahaira' s demeano r durin g thes e interaction s a s " a littl e bi t difficult. " B y contrast , Ms . Clampit t stated , th e fligh t

attendant s involve dwer e "very polite " an d"reall y nice " ( 1 Tr . 155) . Ms . Clampit t adde dtha t

Ms . Tahair a appeare dt o "clearly " understan dth e fligh t attendant' s instructions , becaus e sh e di dretur nt o he r

assigne dsea t

severa l time s ( 1 Tr . 156) . Ms . Clampit t late r testified , " I thin k

sh e [Ms . Tahaira ] understoo dth e directio n t o leav e th e seat " ( 1 Tr . 163) . Th e witnes s als o hear dMs . Tahair aclai mtha t th e fligh t attendants ' treatmen t

o f he r was o n accoun t

o f he r Musli mheritage . "You'r e bein g ver y rud e t o me ; it' s becaus e I' mMuslim, " Ms . Clampit t quote dMs . Tahair aa s sayin g ( 1 Tr . 175-76 ; Exh . C-6) . " * A t som e point , Ms . Clampit t stated , th e fligh t

attendant s attempte dt o fin da differen t unoccupie dro w t o enabl e Ms . Tahair at o stretch out . Whe n th e fligh t firs t lef t JFK , ther e ha dbee n mor e tha n enoug h empt y rows . Eventuall y n o unoccupie drow s remained . A s an evenin g flight , an don e i n whic h th e cre w kep t th e aircraf

t unlit , othe r passenger s ha db y tha t

tim e alread y lai dou t

t o res t i n every formerl y unoccupie dro w ( 1 Tr . 154) . 2 . Lea h Steven s Lea h Steven s was th e "numbe r one, " o r lead , fligh t

attendan t

o n th e flight . Sh e wa s responsibl e for

th e passenger s i n row s 1 throug h 8 ( 1 Tr . 185) . Ms . Steven s testifie dtha t sh e firs t becam e involve dwith Ms . Tahair aafter th e "numbe r two " fligh t

attendant , Rosalin dRojas , wh o wa s responsibl e for th e ro w i n whic h Ms . Tahair aha dbee n assigned , aske dfo r he r assistanc e i n movin g apassenge r attemptin g t o si t

i n a n exi t row . Ms . Rojas , accordin g t o Ms . Stevens ' "Infligh t Disturbanc e Report " submitte dshortl y after disembarkation , ha d"kindly " aske dth e passenge r t o leav e sea t

1 ID , an exit-ro w seat , an dretur n t o he r origina l seat , 9 F (Exh . C

14) . Ms . Steven s approache dth e passenger , Ms . Tahaira . Ms . Tahair atol dMs . Steven s tha t sh e ha dpai dfor

busines s class . JetBlue , th e fligh t attendan t

replied , doe s not

hav e busines s class.' * Ms . Steven s the n aske dMs . Tahair at o retur n t o 9 F ( 1 Tr . 191) . I n response , Ms . Steven s receive dwha t sh e describe da s a"blan k look. " Sh e believe dtha t

Ms . Tahair aha dfaile dt o understan dher . Ms . Tahair aha dtol dMs . Steven s tha t sh e di dnot

speak English . Ms . Steven s felt , however , tha t Ms . Tahair a"spok e broke n English " ( 1 Tr . 246) . Ms . Steven s conclude dtha t Ms . Tahair adi dnot

speak Englis h "clea r

enough " t o si t

i n an exi t

ro w ( 1 Tr . 229) . 1 Tr . 191 ; Exh . C-14 . B y compan y policy , JetBlu e Infligh

t Disturbanc e Report s (IDFs ) ar e placedonline . The referencedID Fi s a

n e-mai l purportedly addressedt

o the online repositor

y o f suc h documents . The e mail' s "author " i s listedas a n individua

l othe r tha n Ms . Stevens , aperson late r identifieda s aJetBlu e custome r servic e agent . Se

e Exh . C-14 , p . 1 . Ms . Steven s explainedtha t the anomal

y resulte dfromthe agen t supplying the passwor

dan dlogging on fo

r he r becaus e sh

e wa s preoccupie dwit

h polic e questioning . Ms . Steven s signedthe statement . I foun dtha t Ms . Steven s i s its author . The DD F als o wa s submittedt

o the Por t o f Seattl e Polic e Department . Se e 1 Tr . 216-21 . Ms . Steven s destroyedthe note s upon whic h he r statemen t i s based . 1 Tr . 239 . Sh

e sai dtha t the statemen t i s averbati

mrecor do f he r notes , whic

h sh e ha dwritte n on board , plu s additiona

l thing s sh e remembered . Sh

e insiste dtha

t the note s containe dnothing tha t wa s not put int o the statement . 1 Tr . 237 , 239 ; 2 Tr . 342-44 , 348-49 . He r explanatio n i s credibl e an

di s accepted . I reject

th e charg e tha

t the witnes s maliciousl y destroyedevidence . 1 Tr . 240 .Ms . Steven s repeate dhe r reques t t o Ms . Tahair at o retur n t o he r origina l seat . Sh e explaine dwh y sh e wa s makin g th e request . Ms . Steven s adde dnonverba l communication , doin g alo t o f pointing . Sh e als o showe dMs . Tahair aasafety informatio n card . Thi s car dexplain s th e responsibilitie s o f exit-row occupants. ^ Whe n Ms . Steven s aske dMs . Tahair ai f sh e coul drea dan y o f

th e car dt o th e fligh t

attendan t

i n English , Ms . Tahair a"too k th e car dan dflicke dit, " "thre w it " o n th e floo r an dsai d"no" * ( 1 Tr . 191-92 , 230 ; 2 Tr . 335 ; se e Exh . C-11) . Momentaril y Ms . Tahair adi dretur n t o he r seat ( 1 Tr . 191-92) . A t som e poin t

- Ms . Steven s coul dnot remembe r

th e exac t sequenc e - th e fligh t attendan t conclude dfro mMs . Tahaira' s reactio n t o he r verba l an dnon-verba l communicatio n tha t

Ms . Tahair adi dno t

wan t t o retur n t o he r

origina l seat . A t

on e poin t Ms . Tahair aindicate dtha t th e passenge r

sittin g nex t

t o he r i n ro w 9 ha dbee n botherin g he r ( 1 Tr . 193 ; Exh . C-14) . Ms . Steven s an dth e numbe r tw o fligh t

attendant , Ms . Rojas , showe dMs . Tahair aempt y row s t o res t in . Ther e wer e at

leas t three , an dpossibl y u p t o six , suc h rows , sh e remembere d(Exh . C-14 ; 1 Tr . 194 , 267) . It appeare dtha t

sometime s Ms . Tahair a"didn' t

understan dus, " Ms . Steven s sai d( 1 Tr . 194) ; othe r time s Ms . Tahair aanswere d"no " o r shoo k he r hea d( 1 Tr . 197 , 198) . Th e fligh t attendant s go t

Ms . Tahair at o retur n t o he r

origina l sea t

b y transportin g he r

purs e there . Ms . Tahair a followe dhe r

purs e ( 1 Tr . 194 , 197 , 202) . O n on e occasion , Ms . Steven s said , Ms . Tahair a"go t u p an dpushe dpas t

us, " bu t instea do f walkin g t o a

n exi t row , sh e proceede daf

t t o ro w 16 , wher e apassenger , late r identifie da s Rashid aDutt , appeare dt o b e abl e t o communicat e with her . Th e passenger s spok e t o on e another . Ms . Dut t offere dt o translat e for

th e fligh t attendant s ( 1 Tr . 199 , 225 , 255 , 258-59 ; 2 Tr . 320-21) . Ms . Steven s tol dMs . Dut t tha t Ms . Tahair acoul dnot

si t i n an exi t

ro w an d explaine dwhy . Ms . Dutt apparentl y translated , becaus e Ms . Steven s sa w Ms . Tahair a no dhe r hea di n seemin g understandin g ( 1 Tr . 199 , 209) . Durin g thi s exchang e anothe r notabl e inciden t

too k place . Whil e Ms . Steven s wa s leanin g dow n towar dMs . Tahaira , sittin g i n a

n aisl e sea t

o f ro w 16 , o n th e aircraft' s lef t side , suddenl y "popped, " o r tapped .

' Th e FARs , §121.585(d) , requir e ai r carrier s suc

h as JetBlu e t

o "include on passenge

r information cards , presentedi

n the languag e i

n whic h briefing s an

dora l command s ar

e give n b y the crew , a

t each exit sea t

... , informatio

n that , in the even

t of a n emergency i

n whic h acrewmembe

r i s not availabl e t

o assist , a passenge r occupying a

n exit sea t ma y us e i f calle dupo

n t o perfor mth e followin g functions : (1 ) Locat e th e emergency exit ; (2 ) Recogniz e the emergency exit opening mechanism ; (3 ) Comprehen

dth e instruction s fo

r operating the emergency exit ; (4 ) Operat

e th e emergency exit ; (5 ) Asses s whethe

r opening th e emergency exit wil l increas e th e hazard s t

o whic h passenger s ma y b e exposed ; (6 ) Follo w ora

l direction s an

dhan dsignal s give

n b y acrewmember ; (7 ) Stow o

r secur e the emergency exit

doo r s o tha t i t wil l not imped e us e o f th e exit ; (8 ) Asses s th e conditio n o

f a n escap e slide , activat

e the slide , andstabiliz e the slid e afte r deploymen

t t o assis t other s in getting of

f the slide ; (9 ) Pas s expeditiousl

y through th e emergency exit ; an d (10 ) Assess , select , an

dfollow asaf

e pat h awa y fro mth e emergency exit. "th e fligh t attendan t

i n th e face . Ms . Tahair adi dthi s thre e time s ( 1 Tr . 200 ; se e als o 1 Tr . 210 ; 2 Tr . 346 ; Exh . C-14) . Ms . Steven s warne dMs . Tahair at o refrai n fro mtouchin g he r fac e ( 1 Tr . 200 ; Exh . C-14) . Ms . Dutt tol dth e fligh t

attendan t

tha t Ms . Tahair awa s very tire dan dwante dt o li e down . Ms . Steven s offere dan empt y row . Ms . Tahair adecline d( 1 Tr . 200 , 265 ; Exff . C-14) . Th e empt y row s i n th e meantim e fille du p with reclinin g passengers . B y th e tim e th e beverag e an dsnac k

servic e was over , al l row s wer e occupie dsav e th e exi t ro w ( 1 Tr . 204 , 266 , 268) . Ms . Tahair aat tha t poin t aske dMs . Steven s t o wak e u p othe r passenger s s o sh e coul dli e down . Ms . Steven s decline dt o d o s o ( 1 Tr . 266) . Ms . Tahair acontinue dt o tr y an dsi t i n an exi t

row . Ms . Steven s testifie dtha t Ms . Tahair a"pinballed " betwee n rows , goin g bac k an dfort h betwee n he r

origina l sea t

(i n ro w 9) , th e exi t

ro w neares t

he r sea t (ro w 11) , an dth e aisl e seat nex t t o Ms . Dutt , wh o wa s seate di n 16B , th e middl e sea t o f ro w 1 6 o n th e aircraft' s lef t sid e ( 1 Tr . 208-09 ; 2 Tr . 360 , 387) . Ms . Steven s adde dtha t

after th e thre e fligh t

attendants ha dfinishe dthei r service , Ms . Tahair awalke du p t o the mi n th e bac k galle y an dsaid , "Everyon e her e i s white . It' s becaus e I amMuslim . That' s wh y yo u won' t le t m e lay down. " ( 1 Tr . 203-04 ; Exh . C

14) . Ms . Steven s reacte dwith shock . Sh e testifie dtha t sh e ha d"n o idea " o f Respondent' s religio n ( 1 Tr . 204) . Then , accordin g t o Ms . Stevens , Ms . Tahair a- i n an apparen t attemp t t o demonstrat e tha t

th e row s wer e fille du p ~ "grabbe dm e b y m y lef t wris t an dpulle dme " forward . Ms . Steven s adde dtha t Ms . Tahair a"ha dstrength whe n sh e grabbe dm y ar m. .

. I don' t believ e sh e wa s incapacitated " ( 1 Tr . 210-11) . Th e fligh t attendan t

ha dt o brac e hersel f o n th e galle y counte r

t o kee p fro mfallin g forward . Sh e nearl y fel l anywa y ( 1 Tr . 210-11) . A s aresul t

o f Ms . Tahaira' s yank , abruis e quickl y forme do n Ms . Stevens ' forearm( 1 Tr . 211 , 252-53 ; Exh . C-14) . Th e fligh t attendan t photographe di t

wit h he r cel l phon e camer awhe n sh e go t t o he r hote l roo mafte

r landin g ( 1 Tr . 211 ; Exh . C-12) . After th e flight , apolic e officer als o too k

apictur e (Exh . C-13) . Th e picture s sho w tw o bruise s - evidence db y dark discoloratio n —o n Ms . Stevens ' lef t forearm , jus t

abov e he r wris t (Exhs . C-1 2 an dC-13 ; 1 Tr . 213-14) . Ms . Steven s tol dMs . Tahair at o refrai n fro mgrabbin g her . An dMs . Steven s tol d Ms . Tahair athat , althoug h th e fligh t attendant s ha dtrie dt o accommodat e her , Ms . Tahair ano w ha dn o choic e bu t t o si t i n he r origina l sea t

( 1 Tr . 205) . Ms . Steven s walke dwit h Ms . Tahair aforward , towar dMs . Tahaira' s seat . Stil l i n th e aisle , Ms . Tahair astarte d"screaming, " "It' s becaus e I' maMuslim . Yo u wil l no t le t m e si t her e becaus e I a

mMuslim " ( 1 Tr . 205-06 ; se e als o 1 Tr . 233 ; Exh . C-14) . Thi s outburs t awok e everyon e i n th e area . Ms . Tahair apushe dpas t th e fligh t attendant s t oagai n si t i n th e exi t

ro w ( 1 Tr . 206) . Ms . Steven s agai n remindedMs . Tahair atha t sh e wa s not qualifie dt o si t

ther e ( 1 Tr . 206) . A t thi s poin t

Ms . Steven s walke dt o th e fron t o f th e aircraf

t an dtelephone dth e captain . Sh e explaine dt o hi mtha t Ms . Tahair awas pushin g pas t th e crew , an dha djus t grabbe dher . Sh e aske dtha t JetBlu e security personne l mee t th e fligh t ( 1 Tr . 206 ; Exh . * C-14) . Th e captai n instea ddecide dt o cal l th e polic e ( 1 Tr . 207 , 249) . A t abou t thi s tim e th e fligh t

attendant s remove dth e sea t cushion s completel y fro mro w 11 . A s aresult , th e exi t ro w containe donl y th e metalli c framewor k o f th e seats . Ms . Tahair anonetheles s sat ther e ( 1 Tr . 207 ; Exh . C-14) . Ms . Steven s sununarize di n he r

statemen t

tha t "w e offere dhe r

3 entir e sea t

bank s t o li e dow n an dsh e refuse dt o si t

there, " an dtha t

Ms . Tahair a"wa s offere dan ddecline dt o la y dow n anywher e but

th e exi t row. " (Exh . C-14 ) Ms . Steven s sai dtha t

sh e als o reminde dMs . Tahair at o remai n seate dwhe n th e seat-bel t ligh t wa s on . Ms . Steven s issue dthi s reminde r "man y times " ( 1 Tr . 226) . Ms . Tahair awa s ou t

o f he r sea t durin g ascent , whe n th e seat-bel t ligh t wa s o n ( 2 Tr . 314) , an d Ms . Tahair awa s sittin g i n th e exi t row , perche do n th e meta l bars , durin g final descen t ( 1 Tr . 226) . Thes e stage s ar e especiall y critica l phase s o f flight . Se e FA

A v . Feazell , 199 0 W L 339154 , SE-1055 0 (NTS B Januar y 30 , 1990) . Ms . Steven s testifie dtha t Ms . Tahair ainterfere dwith he r duties . Th e constan t movin g disrupte dhe r

servic e ( 1 Tr . 251) . Th e flight attendant s wer e force dt o delay th e flight' s beverag e an dsnac k service , t o som e passengers ' chagri n ( 1 Tr . 196 , 198) . Th e fligh t attendant s als o postpone dneede dattentio n t o othe r passengers . Th e delay s wer e becaus e "w e wer e focusin g al l o f ou r attentio n o n Ms . Tahair a.. . w e wer e dealin g wit h he r [Ms . Tahaira ] always . . . constantl y movin g he r out o f th e exi t row . Ever y tim e w e walke dby , sh e was there " ( 1 Tr . 196) . Ms . Stevens ' statemen t adds , ". . . i t

seeme dtha t w e spen t mos t o f th e fligh t dealin g wit h th e woma n i n 9 F [Ms . Tahaira] " (Exh . C-14) . Ms . Steven s believe dtha t sh e an dMs . Roja s ha dmove dMs . Tahair aou t o f th e exi t ro w abou t 1 5 time s betwee n the m( 1 Tr . 197 , 203 , 250-51 ; 2 Tr . 317 , 318) . I n sum , Ms . Steven s testified , Ms . Tahaira' s conduc t wa s a"hug e distraction " for everyon e ( 1 Tr . 222) . " . . . w e wer e constantl y movin g Ms . Tahair afro mth e exi t ro w t o he r origina l seat , an di t

wa s very , ver y disruptive , very distracting " ( 1 Tr . 223) . 3 . Rosalin dRoja s Rosalin dRoja s wa s th e numbe r tw o fligh t

attendan t

o n thi s flight, responsibl e for passenger s i n row s 9 throug h 1 6 ( 2 Tr . 354) . Afte r th e aircraf

t reache d10,00 0 fee t

an d sh e wa s makin g he r

way t o th e fron t

o f th e aircraf

t fro mth e af

t galley , sh e testified , sh e notice dMs . Tahair ai n a n exi t ro w ( 2 Tr . 354-55) . Ms . Roja s aske dMs . Tahair ai f sh e understoo dtha t

sh e wa s sittin g i n a n emergenc y exi t row , an dif

Ms . Tahair awa s willin g an dabl e t o tak e o n th e attendan t responsibilities . Ms . Tahaira , Ms . Roja s said , di dno t appear t o understand . Ms . Roja s the n aske dMs . Tahair ai f sh e understood , an drepeate dwha t

sh e ha dsaid . Ms . Tahair adi dno t appea r t o comprehend . A t

som e poin t

Ms . Roja s aske dMs . Tahair aif

sh e spok e English ; Ms . Tahair aresponde dwith aglare , a s if , Ms . Roja s said , Ms . Tahair adi dnot understan dwha t

th e flight attendan t was saying . Th e flight attendan t conclude dtha t

Ms . Tahair acoul dno t

rea dth e safety informatio n card . Ms . Roja s aske dMs . Tahair at o leav e th e exi t row . Ms . Tahair a- wh o appeare dt o understan dthi s reques t

- sai d"no " ( 2 Tr . 356-57) . Ms . Roja s walke dforwar dt o obtai n assistanc e fro mMs . Stevens . Ms . Tahair a wa s briefe dasecon dtim e o n th e requirement s fo r sittin g i n an emergenc y exi t ro w ( 2 Tr . 355-56 , 378) . Whe n Ms . Steven s aske dMs . Tahair at o rea dsomethin g fro mth e safet y informatio n card , Ms . Roja s testified , Ms . Tahair athre w i t o n th e floor

( 2 Tr . 379-80 , 382-83) . Throughou t

th e flight th e flight attendant s aske dMs . Tahair at o leav e th e exi t ro w "a t least " o r "approximately " 1 5 time s ( 2 Tr . 357 , 393) . T o thos e request s Ms . Tahair a ha danswere d"No " o r

with ano do f

he r hea d( 2 Tr . 357) . A t

on e poin t

Ms . Tahair alef

t he r seat an dheade daft , Ms . Roja s said , "pushin g through " hersel f an dMs . Stevens , befor e stoppin g a

t ro w 16 , wher e Ms . Dut t

sa t i n th e middl e seat , aircraf t lef t (seat 16B ) ( 2 Tr . 358 , 360 , 387) . Th e flight attendant s askedMs . Dutt if sh e was famil y o r

afriend ; Ms . Dutt replie di n th e negative . Ms . Stevens , accordin g t o Ms . Rojas , the n aske dMs . Dutt i f Ms . Dutt coul dtranslate , an dMs . Dut t replie dthat

sh e coul d( 2 Tr . 358) . Ms . Roja s an dMs . Steven s aske dMs . Dut t t o explai n t o Ms . Tahair atha t he r unfamiliarity with Englis h prevente dhe r fro msittin g i n th e exi t

row . Ms . Dutt apparentl y di dso . Ms . Tahair aseeme dt o understand . Ms . Tahair athe n "tapped " Ms . Steven s - tappe dhe r

han do n Ms . Stevens ' fac e —thre e times . Ms . Steven s pulle dbac k an daske dMs . Tahair at o "pleas e no t touc h her. " Ms . Tahair aremained , a t leas t momentarily , seate dnex t t o Ms . Dutt , i n th e aisl e sea t of ro w 16 , o n th e lef

t sid e o f th e aircraf t ( 2 Tr . 358-59 , 384-85 , 387 ; Exh . C-15) . Ms . Roja s testifie dtha t

sh e offere dMs . Tahair aothe r seat s i n whic h th e passenge r coul dli e dow n ( 2 Tr . 361) . Whil e sh e an dMs . Steven s bega n t o searc h for empt y rows , Ms . Tahair amove dbac k

t o th e exi t

row ; an dwhe n th e flight attendant s agai n offere d othe r seat s for her , Ms . Tahair areplied'No. ' ( 2 Tr . 361-62) . ".. . w e kep t findin g he r bac k at th e exi t row , an dkep t

goin g bac k

an daskin g he r

t o pleas e mov e fro mth e exi t row " ( 2 Tr . 363 ; se e als o Exh . C-15) . A t on e point , Ms . Roja s continued , sh e saw Ms . Tahair awal k towar dth e bac k

o f th e aircraft , wher e Ms . Steven s wa s stzinding , facin g forward . Ms . Tahair agrabbe dMs . Stevens ' han di n an apparen t attemp t t o pul l Ms . Steven s towar dth e front . Ms . Tahair a pulle dMs . Stevens ' wris t "wit h force, " Ms . Roja s sai d( 2 Tr . 370) . Ms . Steven s said , "Ow! " an dpulle dhe r

ar mbac k ( 2 Tr . 363) . Late r

o n i n th e flight

Ms . Roja s observe d black-and-blu e mark s o n Ms . Stevens ' forear m—th e result , sh e concluded , o f thi s inciden t ( 2 Tr . 366 , 383) .1 0 Ms . Roja s sai dtha t

Ms . Tahair araise dhe r

voic e durin g th e flight "several times " ( 2 Tr . 364) . Ms . Rojas ' writte n statemen t t o th e Por t

o f Seattl e Police , give n shortl y after landing , reiterate s tha t

"[Ms . Tahaira ] raise dhe r voic e throughou t

th e flight" (Exh . C-15 ; 2 Tr . 366-67) . Additionally , Ms . Tahaira , standin g i n th e middl e o f th e cabi n a

t th e exi t row , " ^ said , "You'r e doin g thi s becaus e I a mMuslim. " ( 2 Tr . 364) . Ms . Roja s testifie dtha t sh e di dno t kno w Ms . Tahaira' s religio n ( 2 Tr . 364) . Ms . Tahaira , sh e said , wa s not treate d differentl y fro mothe r

passenger s ( 2 Tr . 371) . Ms . Roja s state dtha t

Ms . Tahair ainterrupte dhe r service . Th e servic e o f

drink s an dsnack s wa s delaye dbecaus e sh e ha dt o kee p returnin g t o th e exi t ro w t o as k

Ms . Tahair at o mov e fro mtha t ro w ( 2 Tr . 365) . 4 . Adrienn e Kate-Sanche z Adrienn e Kate-Sanche z was th e thir dflight attendan t o n thi s flight. Sh e wa s responsibl e for

th e bac k o f th e aircraf

t ( 2 Tr . 400-01) . Ms . Kate-Sanche z sai dtha t soo n after

th e plan e reache d10,00 0 feet , Ms . Tahair a cam e t o th e bac k

o f th e cabi n t o us e th e res t

room . Ms . Kate-Sanche z reminde dhe r tha t th e seat-bel t

ligh t was on . Ms . Tahair aappeare dt o understan dwha t wa s said ; sh e pointe dt o he r

stomach , whic h th e flight attendan t too k t o mea n tha t

Ms . Tahair afel t

ill . Whe n Ms . Tahair aexite dth e lavatory , sh e requeste d(i n English ) som e juic e ( 2 Tr . 402

- 03,414-15,421) . Later , Ms . Kate-Sanche z was i n th e bac k galle y whe n Ms . Tahair aapproached , sayin g tha t

everyon e lyin g dow n i n th e seat s was white . Ms . Tahair athe n "grabbe d[Ms . Stevens ] b y th e wrist , with enoug h forc e t o pul l [Ms . Stevens ] forward. " ( 2 Tr . 404) . Ms . Kate-Sanche z sai dtha t sh e tol dMs . Tahair atha t sh e wa s no t

permitte dt o d o that . Ms . Tahaira , th e flight

attendan t testified , appeare dt o understand , an dsh e le t g o ( 2 Tr . 405-06 , 414 , 421) . Late r Ms . Kate-Sanche z sa w o n Ms . Stevens ' wris t amar k whic h sh e characterize da s a"fres h bruise " ( 2 Tr . 406) . Ms . Kate-Sanche z sai dtha t sometim e after

that , sh e tol dMs . Tahair atha t th e passenge r wa s not allowe di n a

n exi t row . Ms . Tahair a"cu t

m e off , an dyelle dat

m e i n a langiiag e tha t

I didn' t understand , an dwalke daway." ^ Ms . Kate-Sanche z observe dn o difficulty i n Ms . Tahaira' s walkin g aroundth e aircraf t ( 2 Tr . 411 , 423) . Sh e als o sai dtha t sh e di dno t

trea t Ms . Tahair aan y differentl y tha n an y othe r

passenge r

( 2 Tr . 413) .

* 2 Tr . 407 . Compar

e Ms . Kate-Sanchez ' statemen t t o the Seattl e police , give

n shortly afte

r disembarking , concerning the sam

e interaction : Ms . Tahair

a".. . yelleda

t m e i n he r nativ e languag e an

dwalke daway. " Exh . C-16 .1 1 5 . Tala t

Tahair a Tala t Tahaira , th e respondent , testifie di n he r ow n behal f Ms . Tahair adenie dal l th e accusation s agains t her . Sh e denie dgrabbin g an y flight attendan t ( 2 Tr . 456 , 470) . Sh e denie dhavin g astron g gri p ( 2 Tr . 457) . Sh e denie d squeezin g Ms . Stevens ' ar m( 2 Tr . 490) . Sh e denie dtappin g Ms . Stevens , o r anyon e else , o n th e face , o r

touchin g anyon e anywher e ( 2 Tr . 457) . Ms . Tahair aals o denie dtha t an y o f th e flight attendants ha daske dhe r if sh e wa s qualifie dt o si t

i n th e exi t

row . Sh e adde dtha t

sh e di dnot

understan dwha t

the y wer e sayin g t o he r

( 2 Tr . 464) . Sh e di dno t accus e th e flight attendants o f unfai r treatmen t

o n accoun t o f bein g Muslim , sh e said . Sh e neve r mentione dreligio n t o th e flight attendant s at all . Sh e denie dyellin g at an y tim e ( 2 Tr . 470-71) . Ms . Tahair aadditionall y sai dtha t th e flight attendant s force dhe r

t o si t wit h Ms . Dutt . Ms . Dutt

di dno t offe r t o translate . No r

di dth e flight

attendant s as k

Ms . Dut t t o translate . An dMs . Dutt

di dno t translat e for

he r ( 2 Tr . 469-70) . Ms . Tahair aals o testifie dtha t sh e aske dMs . Steven s wha t woul dhappe n if

she , Ms . Tahaira , died . Accordin g t o Respondent , Ms . Steven s jokingl y repliedtha t Ms . Tahair awoul db e throw n fro mth e windo w ( 2 Tr . 461-62 , 480) . Ms . Tahair asai dtha t

sh e ha dsimpl y wante dt o li e dow n an dha dexpresse dthat , but tha t th e flight attendant s woul dno t

permi t i t ( 2 Tr . 462 , 464) . Thre e row s wer e empty , sh e said , bu t

th e flight attendant s woul dno t

le t he r reclin e i n an y o f

the m( 2 Tr . 463) . Th e flight attendants "pushed " he r int o he r sea t ( 2 Tr . 490 , 492) . Sh e neve r di d anythin g t o disrup t

th e flight attendant s o n th e flight

( 2 Tr . 492) . " I jus t

wante dt o li e down . Tha t

i s all " ( 2 Tr . 492) . Th e flight attendant s tol dhe r

tha t th e reaso n wh y th e passenger s wer e permitte d t o la y i n th e empt y bank s o f seat s i s becaus e thos e passenger s pai dextr afor thos e seat s ( 2 Tr . 463) . Initially , sh e added , the y woul dnot le t he r retur n t o he r

origina l seat ; eventually , however , the y di d( 2 Tr . 468) . 480) . Finally , Ms . Tahair asai dtha t sh e wel l kne w wha t

an emergenc y sea t

wa s ( 2 Tr . C . Finding s 1 . Credibilit y Complainant' s an dMs . Tahaira' s witnesse s gav e dramaticall y conflictin g account s o f

th e incident s whic h le dt o thi s action . A s such , credibilit y determination s wil l significantl y affec t

th e outcome . Th e undersigned' s conclusion s o n thi s issu e ar e importan t because , a s th e Administrato r ha s state dman y times , "[t]h e ALJ' s credibilit y1 2

assessment s deserv e grea t weigh t an dar e entitle dt o deference. " See , e.g. , Shelle y Louis e Conger , FA A Orde r

No . 2007- 8 (Augus t

7 , 2007) , p . 13 . T o th e sam e effect , ou r siste r agency , th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safety Boar d(NTSB) , require s tha t an ALJ' s credibilit y finding s b e uphel d"unles s ther e i s acompellin g reaso n o r th e findin g wa s clearl y erroneous. " Donal dH . Dutton , 7 NTS B 521 , 52 3 (October 10 , 1990) , 199 0 W L 339138 , cite di n Andrzejewsk i v . FAA , 56 3 F.2 d796 , 79 9 ( 9 Cir . 2008) . I generall y trus t

an dcredi t

th e testimon y o f

Complainant' s witnesses . I am largel y discountin g th e testimon y o f Ms . Tahaira' s onl y primar y witness , Ms . Tahaira . In nearl y ever y insteince , I hav e resolve dconflictin g account s o f th e agency' s witnesse s an d percipient' s witnes s i n favo r o f th e agency . Ther e ar e severa l reason s for m y determination . I foun dMs . Clampitt , Ms . Stevens , Ms . Rojas , an dMs . Kate-Sanche z individuall y t o b e credible . Thei r demeano r suggeste dtrustworthiness . Thei r description s of

event s als o conveye dsincerity . Th e witnesse s wer e forthright . I saw n o attemp t t o exaggerat e o r

embroide r

events . I observe donl y attempt s t o recal l th e incident s wit h a s muc h accurac y a s possible . Th e witnesses ' account s ran g true . Ms . Clampitt , it

shoul db e stressed , was apassenge r o n thi s flight. Sh e wa s no t involve di n an y o f

th e incidents . A s aflight attendant , an don e o f

lon g standing , sh e wa s familia r with exit-row requirement s an dothe r safety matter s affectin g ai r transportation . An dalthoug h sh e ha dbee n i n th e skie s fo r 1 7 year s ( 1 Tr . 146) , sh e wa s onl y briefl y acquainte dwith on e o f

th e flight attendant s workin g thi s flight an dha dneve r

me t th e othe r tw o ( 1 Tr . 160) . Sh e wa s not employe db y JetBlue . Sh e ha dn o stak e i n th e outcom e o f

thi s case . I fin dthat

sh e wa s adisintereste dobserver . Indeed , sh e wa s th e onl y disintereste dobserve r i n th e cas e t o testify . Th e fac t tha t he r testimon y wa s generall y consisten t

with th e testimon y o f

th e workin g flight

attendan t witnesse s additionall y suggest s that Complainant' s witnesse s wer e credible . Ms . Tahaira , i n attemptin g t o cas t doub t o n Complainan t

witnesses ' credibility , makes muc h o f

th e fac t tha t th e witnesse s sometime s remembere dcertai n aspect s o f th e sam e events differently . Ms . Tahair aals o showe dtha t o n occasio n awitnes s faile dt o not e an arguabl y significan t even t discusse db y anothe r

percipien t

witness . Complainan t witnesse s als o offere dinternall y inconsisten t testimony , sh e charge d(See , e.g. , Resp . Br. , pp . 7-9) . Tha t awitnes s ma y hav e misstate dfact s o r sequences , however , o r

offere d inconsisten t

o r incomplet e testimony , fail s t o furnis h areaso n t o discredi t tha t witness ' testimon y a s awhole . Suc h circumstance s b y themselve s d o not sugges t tha t th e witnes s wa s embellishing , misrepresenting , o r lying . Se e Howar dGotbetter , FA A Orde r No . 2000-1 7 (Augus t

11 , 2000) , pp . 9-10 . Fo r example , testimon y differe dconcernin g whethe r Ms . Tahair abrough t

th e flight attendant s t o Ms . Dutt

o r th e flight attendant s brough t

Ms . Tahair at o Ms . Dutt . Ther e wa s testimon y that Ms . Dutt initiate dan offe

r t o translate , bu t

ther e als o wa s1 3

testimon y that

aflight attendan t mad e th e firs t

approach . Laur aClampit t state dtha t

Ms . Tahair ala y dow n i n a

n exi t row , bu t Ms . Steven s insiste dtha t Ms . Tahair aneve r

actuall y reclined , bu t

alway s sat . Ms . Rojas ' statemen t t o th e polic e referre dt o Ms . Dut t a s Ms . Tahaira' s friend , but

a t th e hearin g sh e sai dtha t Ms . Dut t ha dmad e i t

clear tha t th e tw o passenger s wer e unacquainted . I fin dthat thes e difference s ar e mino r an dnon-persuasive . The y als o ar e no t relevan t t o th e cor e issue s befor e th e agency . Thes e relativel y trivia l discrepancie s d o not cal l int o questio n th e overal l reliabilit y o f th e witnesses ' testimony . A fast-movin g an d fluidserie s o f

confrontation s i n ameta l tub e hurtlin g throug h th e skie s i s no t th e idea l situatio n for

recallin g sequence s an ddetail s with exactitud e o r thoroughness . Indeed , ha d th e witnesses ' account s bee n uniform , o r eve n uncommonl y consistent , i t woul dhav e raise dth e questio n o f

whethe r thei r testimon y ha dbee n coordinate do r rehearsed . Mino r inconsistencie s i n th e evidenc e d o not justif y disturbin g a

n ALJ' s credibilit y determination . Pete r

Houtenbos , FA A Orde r

No . 2002-2 4 (Novembe r 22 , 2002) , pp . 12

- 13 ; Nichola s J . Werle , FA A Orde r No . 97-2 0 (May 23 , 1997) , p . 11 . Anothe r facto r suggestin g tha t

th e varyin g account s o f

Complainan t

witnesse s wer e sincer e an dtrustworth y i s tha t difference s i n thei r

testimon y di dno t

necessaril y bolste r th e agency' s case . Ms . Rojas ' testimon y allegin g tha t Ms . Tahair agrabbe dMs . Stevens ' armo r

wris t asserte dals o tha t

Ms . Steven s at

tha t momen t crie d"Ow! " - a strikin g underscorin g o f

th e forc e whic h resulted . Accordin g t o bot h Ms . Roja s an dMs . Stevens , abruis e an dattendan t discoloratio n appeare do n Ms . Steven' s ar mshortl y thereafte r (se e Exhs . C-12 , C-13 ; hiitia l Decisio n ("I.D.") , p . 10) . Bu t neithe r Ms . Stevens ' statemen t

give n t o th e polic e no r

he r ora l testimon y asserte dtha t sh e ha dsai d anythin g whe n Ms . Tahair ajerke dhe r forward . Tha t

circumstanc e suggest s trustworthiness . Ha dMs . Steven s intende dt o embellis h o r otherwis e fabricat e he r recollectio n t o strengthe n th e cas e agains t Ms . Tahair ai t

i s imlikel y tha t

sh e woul dhav e faile dt o describ e suc h a

n evocativ e moment . Th e contrastin g recollection s o f Ms . Roja s an dMs . Steven s sho w tha t percipien t

witnesse s wil l recal l th e sam e events - eve n thos e with acertai n dram a—differently . Tha t circumstanc e alon e doe s no t undermin e th e credibilit y o f

eithe r witnesses ' testimony . Tendin g als o t o suppor t

th e credibilit y o f

Complainan t

witnesse s Ms . Roja s an d Ms . Steven s i n particula r ar e thei r assertion s that

Ms . Tahair astate dtha t

sh e fel t sh e ha d bee n single dout

an dmaltreate do n accoun t o f he r Musli mreligio n ( 1 Tr . 203-0 4 (Stevens) ; 2 Tr . 36 4 (Rojas) ; se e als o 1 Tr . 175-7 6 (Clampitt)) . Allegation s of discriminatio n woul dten dt o imput e imprope r an dmaliciou s motive s t o th e flight attendants and , i n s o doing , undermin e thei r substantiv e claim s agains t Ms . Tahaira . Suc h aclaim , if

give n credence , als o coul ddamag e thes e witnesse s bot h professionall y an dpersonally . Tha t

Ms . Steven s an dMs . Roja s woul dtestif y tha t Ms . Tahair aaccuse d th e flight attendants o f

discriminatio n o n th e basi s o f religio n introduce s an elemen t whic h migh t

hav e repercussion s unfavorabl e t o them . Tha t the y di ds o nonetheles s tend s t o sho w tha t

thei r testimon y was straightforwar dan dhonest . I t show s tha t

thei r testimon y a s awhol e wa s trustworthy .1 4 Ms . Tahair aadditionall y support s he r attack s o n th e credibilit y o f witnesse s Steven s an dRoja s b y pointin g ou t inconsistencie s betwee n thei r statement s t o th e polic e an dthei r testimon y a

t th e hearin g (see , e.g. , 2 Tr . 346-47) . Ms . Rojas , for example , tol d th e polic e that

th e flight attendants "ha dt o mov e [Ms . Tahaira ] 5 times " t o he r origina l sea t (Exh . C-15) , but

a t th e hearing , sh e claime dtha t Ms . Tahair aha dbee n move di n tota l abou t 1 5 times . Ms . Stevens ' assertio n that Ms . Tahair aha dflickedth e safety ~ * informatio n car do n th e floor (I.D. , p . 6 ) was absen t

fro mhe r statement . Additionally , whil e Ms . Steven s claime di n testimon y tha t Ms . Tahair a"popped " he r thre e time s ( 1 Tr . 200) , he r writte n statemen t

say s onl y tha t

Ms . Tahair a"poppe dm e o n th e face, " possibl y implyin g jus t

on e touchin g (se e Exh . C-14) . Th e witnesses ' explanation s fo r thes e difference s wer e sensibl e an dreasonabl e an dd o no t

har mthei r

credibility . Ms . Roja s testifie dtha t he r statemen t

wa s no t complet e ( 2 Tr . 380) . Sh e stresse dtha t sh e wa s ver y tire dwhe n sh e wrot e it , an di n tha t conditio n coul dnot recal l everythin g notabl e tha t ha doccurre do n th e flight ( 2 Tr . 367 , 381 , 382) . Th e flight attendant s wer e at

th e en do f

thei r shif t o n aredey e flight

( 2 Tr . 367) . Ms . Stevens , whil e acknowledgin g tha t he r statemen t

coul dhav e bee n mor e thoroug h ( 2 Tr . 343) , also , lik e Ms . Rojas , emphasize dtha t sh e wa s tire dwhe n sh e compose dhe r statemen t ( 2 Tr . 342 , 347) . I credi t thes e explanations . It

simpl y ask s to o muc h t o expec t anyone , muc h les s aver y tire dwitness , t o recal l inmiediatel y afterward s substantiall y al l significan t

matter s occurrin g ove r

severa l hour s agains t

ahecti c an dtens e background . Ms . Rojas , i n m y view , aptl y summe du p th e contex t o f bot h statements : " I jus t

put dow n th e informatio n tha t

I quickl y remembered " ( 2 Tr . 381) . Th e discrepancie s betwee n th e witnesses ' statement s an dthei r testimon y at

th e hearin g unde r

th e circumstance s furnis h n o caus e t o discredi t

thei r testimon y a s awhole . I n orde r t o mak e afindin g discreditin g Complainan t witnesses , moreover , I woul d hav e t o conclud e tha t

th e witnesse s togethe r

fabricate d- an drehearse d—acomplicate d nartative , involvin g severa l discret e events . T o mak e suc h aleap i s manifestl y unwarranted . Fou r

percipien t

witnesse s - on e o f

who mi s aflight

attendan t a t anothe r airlin e wit

h jus t apassin g acquaintanc e with on e o f th e other s ~ ha dn o discernibl e reaso n t o li e i n concert , o r individually . Lea h Stevens ' commen t i n thi s connectio n i s apt : " I hav e n o reaso n t o lie . Thi s i s aburde n for m e t o com e her e fro mwher e I live , acros s th e country , t o d o this.. . Thi s i s no t fun for me " ( 1 Tr . 241) . In sum , I fin dtha t

Complainant' s witnesse s wer e sincer e an dbelievable . The y recoimte dth e variou s stage s i n adifficul t an ddrawn-ou t

situatio n a s bes t

a s the y could . Purporte dgap s an dothe r deficiencie s i n thei r

testimon y wer e reasonabl e unde r th e circumstances . The y d o no t disturb m y finding s regardin g credibility . Ms . Tahaira' s dismissiv e conclusio n tha t "[tjhey'r e al l lying " ( 2 Tr . 493) , o n th e othe r hand , run s contrar y t o th e totalit y o f th e evidence , an di s rejected . I generall y hav e no t

credite dMs . Tahaira' s testimony . I fin dthat , o n th e whole , it wa s not truthful . Sh e ofte n faile dt o readil y an ddirectl y answe r questions ; he r

response s1 5

wer e sometime s evasive ; an dsh e avoide dquestion s o r volunteere dunaske dinformation . I fin dtha t sh e fabricate dsignifican t portion s o f

he r testimony . Muc h o f Ms . Tahaira' s testimon y range dfro munlikel y t o outrigh t fanciful . Thi s i s s o eve n whe n i t

i s evaluate di n isolation , an dnot agains t th e assertion s o f Complainant' s witnesses . Whil e Ms . Tahaira' s claim s tha t sh e di dnot

"pop " Ms . "

* Stevens , grab her , flip th e safet y informatio n car do n th e floor, o r fai l t o cooperat e with th e crew' s requests , wer e not o n thei r fac e unbelievable , othe r

assertion s wer e s o far

fetche dtha t

the y independentl y cal l int o questio n Respondent' s explanatio n o f al l th e events . Ms . Tahaira' s clai mtha t Ms . Dut t wa s neithe r

aske dto , no r

did , translat e fo r

he r Strain s credulity . I fin dthi s assertio n simpl y vexatious . I t i s highl y dubiou s to o tha t a flight attendan t woul d(a s Ms . Tahair aclaims ) state , eve n jokingly , that adecease d passenge r woul db e tosse dfro mawindo w (se e 2 Tr . 464 , 479 ; I.D. , p . 11) . I fin dfurther tha t Ms . Tahaira' s denia l tha t th e flight attendant s attempte dt o examin e he r qualification s t o si t

i n a n exi t ro w ( 2 Tr . 464 ) i s implausible . I n askin g m e essentiall y t o believ e tha t

th e flight attendant s (particularl y Ms . Rojas , wh o wa s responsibl e for th e ro w i n whic h Ms . Tahair asat ) wer e derelic t i n performin g astandar dsafety dut y (se e 1 Tr . 152) , thi s clai mborder s o n th e preposterous . Ms . Tahaira' s additiona l assertio n tha t a flight attendan t ha dtol dhe r

that th e passenger s lyin g acros s aban k o f seat s pai dextr afor thos e seat s ( 2 Tr . 463 ) crosse s th e oute r edg e o f reasonabl e belief. I t

i s bizarre . I n sum , Ms . Tahair amad e severa l statement s tha t wer e s o outlandis h tha t

the y substantially , an d independently , undermine dth e credibilit y o f he r testimon y a s awhole . I fin dfurther

tha t Ms . Tahaira' s accusation s agains t th e flight cre w - whic h includ e allegation s o f

rudenes s ( 1 Tr . 175 ; Resp . Br. , p . 13 ) an d"pushing " he r int o he r seat ( 2 Tr . 490 , 492 ) a s wel l a s discriminatio n ~ ar e an attemp t t o deflec t

criticis mfrom he r ow n behavior . I categoricall y rejec t them . The y ar e groundles s an dreckless . I fin d tha t th e cre w conducte dthemselve s i n aprofessiona l an dexemplar y marme r unde r difficul t circumstances . Ms . Tahaira' s demeano r

an dtestimon y wer e mor e consisten t with awitnes s inten t o n an agend ao r

awitnes s wh o i s biase do r imtrustworthy . O n th e whole , I fin dhe r testimon y implausibl e an dno t credible . Responden t

simpl y was unworth y o f belief. ^

^ Eve n Ms . Dutt' s purporte dstatement , t o whic h I giv e ver

y littl e weigh

t becaus e o f foundationa

l issue s an d th e lac k o f opportunit

y fo r cross-examinatio n (sh

e didnot appea r a t the hearing , despit

e asubpoen a ordering he

r t o do so ) state s tha

t she wa s "askedt o communicat

e wit h Ms . Tahair

a. . . " Exh . R-1 . Se

e als o Compl . Br. , p . 1 6 n . 2 . ^ Ms . Stevens ' unrebuttedtestimon y tha t Ms . Tahairaassertedtha

t sh e ha dpai dfo r business-clas s seats o

n afligh t whic h ha s n o busines s clas s (I.D. , p . 5 ) raise s the question tha t Responden

t als o ma y hav e bee n confused , a

n additiona

l facto r coloring he

r recollection . W

e hav e see n tha t she wa s ver y tire dfromaserie s o f lon g flights an

dlayover s totalin g a

t leas t 2 8 hour s (I.D. , p . 3) . He

r son Ma t Chaudhry , wh

o was als o a witness , testifiedtha

t th e traveling hi s mothe

r regularly undertake s i s a"ver y grueling experienc e . . . ver y tiring " ( 2 Tr . 513) . Suc

h circumstance s ma

y imped e aclear-heade drecounting o f events .1 6 2 . Sectio n 121.585(c ) Thi s FA Rrequire s complianc e with crewmembe r instruction s regardin g exi t seatin g restriction s (se e I.D. , p . 1) . Complainan t prove dtha t

Ms . Tahair aviolate dthi s regulatio n o n at

leas t fiv e occasions . Th e evidenc e demonstrate dtha t Ms . Tahair adi dnot

speak Englis h clearl y enoug h t o si t i n a n exi t ro w (I.D. , pp . 5-6) . Fligh t attendants , i n accordanc e with safety procedures , the n directe dhe r t o si t i n anon-exi t

row . Ye t

severa l time s Ms . Tahair a ignore do r

defie dthes e instructions . Th e evidenc e tha t

Ms . Tahair aviolate d§ 121.585(c ) i s ample . Al l four o f Complainant' s percipien t witnesse s testifie dt o it . Bu t th e witnesses ' statement s concernin g th e numbe r

o f time s Ms . Tahair areturne dt o an exi t ro w wer e ver y different . Becaus e o f

this , Ms . Tahair asuggest s tha t th e credibilit y o f

thes e observation s (an db y extensio n th e witnesses ' testimon y a s awhole ) i s doubtfu l (Resp . Br. , p . 8) . Ye t whethe r Ms . Tahair asat

i n a n exi t ro w agains t

instruction s fiv e times , fifteen times , o r som e othe r numbe r o f times , i s not

germane. ^ Th e import

o f th e witnesses ' testimon y i s th e significan t

consideration , an di t

wa s absolutel y consisten t an dcredible : Ms . Tahair ao n multipl e occasion s returne dt o th e exi t ro w t o si t

o r reclin e after

bein g mad e awar e tha t sh e wa s unqualifie dan dcoul dnot b e permitte dt o b e there . Ms . Tahair arefuse drepeate d offer s o f non-exi t row s i n whic h t o stretch out , instea dstubbornl y returnin g t o a n exi t ro w tha t sh e kne w wa s off-limits . Eve n after th e sea t cushion s i n th e particular exi t ro w sh e ha dfavore dwer e turne dinsid e ou t i n orde r t o discourag e he r

fro msittin g o r

reclinin g there , sh e returned . Whe n th e cushion s fro mtha t ro w wer e remove daltogether , sh e stil l returned . Th e credibl e evidenc e i s overwhelmin g tha t Ms . Tahair afaile dan drefuse d severa l time s t o abid e b y flight attendan t instruction s t o refrai n fro msittin g i n a n exi t row . Thi s evidenc e show s tha t Ms . Tahaira , multipl e time s - a t leas t fiv e ~ violate d §121.585(c) . I n he r answe r t o thi s charge , Ms . Tahair aasserte dtha t sh e understand s th e meanin g an dsignificanc e o f sittin g i n an exi t

row , an dwoul dhav e ha dn o reaso n t o d o s o ( 2 Tr . 480) . I

f Ms . Tahair atrul y understoo dth e meanin g an dsignificanc e o f sittin g i n an exi t row , the n he r

action s - testifie dt o b y fou r othe r witnesse s - ar e al l th e mor e um-easonable . Ms . Tahair aanswere dtha t sh e "never " sa t

ther e ( 2 Tr . 480) , astatemen t completel y a

t odd s with th e credibl e evidenc e an dtestimony . I n vie w o f th e trustworth y an dextensiv e testimon y t o th e contrary , thi s clai msimpl y i s incredibl e an di s rejected . Ms . Tahair aals o asserte di n he r defens e tha t

alanguag e barrie r

prevente dhe r fro mfollowin g th e flight attendants ' exit-ro w directions . Whe n th e flight attendant s wer e talkin g t o he r

i n thei r effort s t o determin e whethe r sh e wa s qualifie dt o si t

i n th e exi t

row , Ms . Tahair asai dsh e di dno t understan dthe m( 2 Tr . 464) . Insofa r a s Ms . Tahaira' s assertio n i s intende dt o mea n tha t sh e neve r

understoo dwha t

th e flight attendant s wer e tryin g t o conve y t o her , i t i s no t believable . T o b e sure , ther e wer e instance s i n whic h

' The agenc

y concede s tha

t "th e precis e numbe

r o f time s th e Responden

t returnedt o the exit row , afte r bein g instructednot

t o si t there , i s unclear. " Compl . Br. , p . 4 .1 7

Ms . Tahair aappeare dt o fai l t o understan dth e flight attendant s ~ includin g conversation s concernin g he r

fitnes s t o si t

i n an exi t

ro w (see , e.g. , 1 Tr . 193-9 4 (Stevens) ; 2 Tr . 35 6 (Rojas) ) —but

th e evidenc e showe dtha t th e flight attendants successfull y conveye dt o Ms . Tahair atha t

sh e was no t

qualifie dt o plac e hersel f i n a n exi t

ro w an dwa s forbidde n t o si t o r reclin e there . Ms . Steven s an dMs . Roja s eac h credibl y testifie dthat , usin g variou s verba l an dnon-verba l method s singl y o r i n combination , the y mad e themselve s * understood . B y repeatin g themselves , sayin g th e sam e thin g i n differen t ways , usin g pantomime , usin g visua l aid s suc h a s th e safety informatio n card , an dobtainin g Ms . Dutt' s translation , the y got acros s thei r

message . The y kne w it

fro mMs . Tahaira' s reaction s (See , e.g. , 1 Tr . 19 9 (Stevens) : "Mrs . Dut t tol dMs . Tahaira , i n anothe r language , everything , Ms . Tahaira' s noddin g he r head , understanding, . . " ; 2 Tr . 356-5 7 (Rojas) : "Q . Yo u kno w [Ms . Tahaira ] understoo dtha t reques t [t o leav e th e emergenc y exi t row] ? A . A t

tha t point ; yes . Q . Ho w coul dyo u tell ? A . Becaus e whe n w e aske dhe r agai n t o move , sh e sai dno.") . Th e flight attendants ' testimon y was persuasive . Ms . Clampitt , th e America n Airline s flight attendan t travelin g a s apassenger , tls o observed :

. . . afte r th e flight

attendant s aske d[^Ms . Tahaira ] t o leav e th e seat , th e conversatio n an dth e kin da[|sic ] argumen t a s t o why ? why ? why ? ensued , an ds o thi s wa s goin g o n i n English , an dthe n sh e di deventuall y g o bac k t o he r seat . . . ther e was aconversatio n tha t wa s goin g o n i n Englis h betwee n Ms . Tahair aan dth e flight attendant , regardin g th e situation , s o tha t

i s wh y 1 though t

i t wa s clearl y understood . Tr . 156 . Th e flight attendants ' action s i n repeatedl y removin g Ms . Tahair afro mth e exi t ro w shoul dhav e put

he r o n notice , too . Sh e shoul dhav e draw n th e logica l - indee d obviou s ~ conclusio n fro mthei r repeate dactions . I endors e th e rational e o f FA A Aviatio n Safet

y Inspecto r

an dwitnes s Jame s Hawks , wh o testified , "it' db e prett y clear t o areasonabl e person , i

f th e flight attendant s kee p removin g yo u fro maseat , o r aserie s o f seats , the n the y don' t

wan t yo u t o b e sittin g there " ( 1 Tr . 92-93) . Additionally , a s avetera n flyer - on e who , b y he r ow n testimony , ha s bee n flying fo r twent y year s ( 2 Tr . 458,478 ; I.D. , p . 3 ) - Ms . Tahair amus t b e presume dt o b e awar e o f basi c rule s an dprecaution s associate dwit h ai r travel . Mor e specifically , sh e mus t hav e bee n awar e o f

th e restriction s o n exit-ro w seating . Ms . Tahair aacknowledge da s muc h i n he r

ow n testimon y ( 2 Tr . 480) . Ms . Tahaira , moreover , demonstrate db y he r action s tha t

sh e understoo dth e flight attendants ' requests . He r charg e that , durin g th e flight, sh e ha dbee n unfairl y blocke d fro msittin g o r

reclinin g i n an empt y sea t ban k o n accoun t

o f he r religio n ( 1 Tr . 175-76 ; Exh . C- 6 (I.D. , p . 5 ) (testimon y o f Ms . Clampitt) ; 1 Tr . 205-06 ; Exh . C-1 4 (I.D. , p . 7 ) (Ms . Stevens) ; an d2 Tr . 36 4 (I.D. , p . 10 ) (Ms . Rojas)) , mus t presuppos e tha t

Ms . Tahair a comprehende dsufficientl y th e flight attendants ' instruction s prohibitin g he r fromsittin g there . Ms . Tahaira' s contrastin g testimon y denyin g tha t sh e eve r complaine dabou t

unfai r treatmen t o n accoun t

o f he r religio n - o r

tha t sh e eve n mentione dhe r

heritag e ( 2 Tr . 470

-71 ) - is , i n th e fac e o f credibl e an dsubstantia l contrar y testimony , rejecte da s simpl y unbelievable . I als o rejec t

Ms . Tahaira' s argumen t

suggestin g tha t

Complainan t

i s tryin g t o "hav e i t both ways " - tha t

is , clai mo n th e on e han dtha t Ms . Tahair a"perfectl y understood " th e crew' s instructio n no t t o si t i n an emergenc y exi t

row , whil e a

t th e same " tim e assert

tha t Ms . Tahair adi dnot

hav e th e English-languag e capabilit y t o si t ther e (Resp . Br. , p . 16) . Ms . Tahaira' s contentio n fail s b y implicitl y denyin g th e existenc e o f a middl e groun dbetwee n thes e extremes . In tha t middl e groun di s wher e th e evidenc e fell . Th e evidenc e showe dtha t Ms . Tahair aindee dha dlimite dfacility i n Englis h - to o limite d fo r exit-row occupant s —

bu t nonetheles s understoo dEnglis h wel l enoug h t o comprehen d th e crew' s instructions . Ms . Tahaira , I find , hear dan dunderstoo dth e flight attendants ' instruction s t o her . He r failur e t o hdfe

dthe mi s wholl y he r

responsibility , an dth e consequence s o f he r action s res t entirel y with her. ' In thi s cormection , I not e tha t I hav e considere dal l othe r argument s raise db y Ms . Tahaira . Thos e no t

explicitl y discusse di n thi s Initia l Decisio n ar e rejecte da s withou t merit. " 3 . Sectio n 4631 8 A s ha s bee n seen , 4 9 U.S.C . §4631 8 i s violate dwhe n a n individua l assault s a membe r o f aflight cre w (I.D. , pp . 1-2) . Complainan t provedtha t

Ms . Tahair aassaulte d Ms . Steven s i n violatio n o f thi s statut e whe n sh e tapped , o r "popped, " Ms . Steven s i n th e face . Ms . Tahair aals o conmiitte da n assaul t whe n sh e grabbe dan dyanke dth e flight attendant' s wris t

o r forearm . Tw o o f

th e flight attendants (Steven s an dRojas ) testifie da s t o th e firs t

incident , an dal l thre e o f th e workin g flight

attendant s (Stevens , Rojas , an d Kate-Sanchez ) testifie da s t o th e second . Th e ter m"assault " i s not

define di n sectio n 46318 . It i s well-settled , however , tha t whe n astatut e use s acommon-la w ter msuc h a s "assault " withou t definin g it , th e ter mmus t

b e take n t o mea n th e sam e thin g i t mean s at conmio n law . U.S . v . Turley , 35 2

' " Moreover , Ms . Tahaira' s assertio n a t the hearin g tha

t sh e faile dt o understandconversation s concerning he r exit-ro w qualification s itsel f raise s doubts . The transcrip t record s the following exchang e betwee n counse l fo r Ms . Tahair

aan dMs . Tahaira : "Q . Couldyo u understandwha

t the y wer e saying t o you ? A . (speaking fo

r herself ) No. " 2 Tr . 464 . Thi s exchang e show s tha t Respondeij t

understoo dthe question posedt o he r in English . ' Responden

t contend s tha

t JetBlu e employee s hav e bee n citedsevera

l time s fo r "racis t behavior " towar

d Sout h Asians , settin g ou

t purportedexamples . Resp . Br. , pp . 4-5 . Thes e assertion s hav e n o evidentiar

y basis . Moreover , the

y ar e irrelevant . Wha

t someone els e ma

y have saido

r done simpl

y ha s n o bearing o

n thi s case . Ms . Tahair

aals o state s tha

t th e carrier' s fligh

t crew s ar e no t frainedi n "racia l sensitivit y an d elimination o

f bias " - aproble

mwhich , she claims , "directly causedthe inciden t i n question. " Resp . Br. , p . 5 . Thi s accusatio n i s mer

e conjecture . Conjectur

e i s not substantia l evidence . Braden' s Balloon' s Aloft , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 2004- 6 (Septembe

r 22 , 2004) , p . 16 , affd , 2005 W L 354107 8 (1 0 Cir . 2005) . Th e claimals o i s irrelevant . A s I statedearlier , thi s proceeding concern s Ms . Tahaira' s behavior - n o one else's . I.D. , p . 2 .1 9

U.S . 407 , 41 1 (1957) . Th e common-la w definitio n o f "assault " include s tw o distinc t concepts . Th e firs t

i s a n attemp t t o commi t

abattery . Th e secondconsist s o f " athrea t t o inflic t injur y upo n th e perso n o f

anothe r which , whe n couple dwith a n apparen t

presen t ability , cause s areasonabl e apprehensio n o f immediat e bodil y harm. " U.S . v . Dupree , 54 4 F.2 d1050 , 105 1 ( 9 Cir . 1976) . Th e Administrato r als o ha s state dtha t

a n assaul t i s a n unwante dtouching . Howar dGotbetter , FA A Orde r No . 2000-1 7 (Augus t

11 , 2000) , p . "

* 11 . Th e agenc y als o ha s define d"assault " a s a"harmfu l o r offensiv e intentiona l contact." ' I n th e contex t o f thi s case , "popping, " o r

tapping , Ms . Stevens ' fac e plainl y constitute da

n assault . S o di dMs . Tahaira' s actio n i n forcefull y grabbin g an djerkin g forwar dMs . Stevens ' wris t an dforear m(se e I.D. , pp . 7-8) . Thes e action s wer e attempt s t o commi t

abattery ; the y als o eac h constitute dthreat s t o injur e Ms . Steven s whic h cause d he r reasonabl y t o fea

r presen t bodil y harm . And , o f

course , i n bot h instance s actua l contac t too k place . Ms . Tahair adenie s tha t

sh e committe da

n assault . I n suppor t

Ms . Tahair aassert s tha t sh e wa s not

physicall y capabl e o f

suc h a n act . Sh e contend s tha t

sh e was to o weak an dfrai l t o yan k

Ms . Stevens ' forear mo r wris t o r t o injur e her . Thi s argumen t i s rejected . Th e recor dfurnishe s n o suppor t fo r it . Ther e i s n o intimatio n tha t an y o f Ms . Tahaira' s allege dailments , singl y o r i n combination , prevente dhe r fro msummonin g th e strength an ddexterit y neede dt o commi t thes e assault s (se e Compl . Br. , p . 18) . I fin dthat Ms . Tahair acould , an ddid , assaul t flight attendan t Steven s o n tw o occasions . Ms . Tahaira' s action s describe dabov e wer e unwante dan doffensive ; he r grab o f Ms . Stevens ' forearmo r

wrist , th e evidenc e showed , wa s harmfu l a s well . Thes e action s wer e deliberat e an dintentional . Tha t Ms . Tahair ama y no t

hav e intende dt o caus e har m i s irrelevan t

t o th e violation ; wha t

matter s i s tha t

sh e full y intende dth e assault . Ms . Tahaira' s contrar y assertio n tha t sh e neithe r

"popped " no r

grabbe dMs . Steven s i s rejecte da s unworth y o f

belief. Additionally , I credi t Ms . Stevens ' assertio n - supporte d b y fello w flight attendants Roja s an dKate-Sanche z — tha t thi s assaul t

raise dabruis e o n he r forearmwhic h discolore dit , an dwhic h remaine dfo r days . 4 . Sectio n 121.58 0 Complainant , quotin g FA R§121.580 , allege s tha t Ms . Tahair a"assaulted , threatened , intimidate do r interfere dwith crewmember s i n th e performanc e o f thei r dutie s aboar dan aircraf

t bein g operated " (se e I.D. , p . 1) . I fin dtha t Complainan t

provedtha t Ms . Tahair ainterfere dwit h th e dutie s o f th e flight attendants i n violatio n o f thi s section . Ms . Steven s an dMs . Rojas , th e flight attendants wh o primaril y deal t with Ms . Tahaira , bot h credibl y testifie dtha t Ms . Tahaira' s action s cause damateria l an d unnecessar y interruptio n i n thei r duties . Ms . Steven s state dtha t th e flight attendants wer e

'^ Technically , i

t i s the tor t o f batter y tha t i s s o defined . Evgeni

y V . Ignatov , FA

A Orde r No . 96- 6 (Februar

y 13 , 1996) , p . 8 , quoting W . Pag e Keeton et al . Prosse

r & Keaton o

n the La w o f Torts . §9 , p . 3 9 (5 * ed . 1984) ; see als o Davi dH . Mayer , FA A Orde r 97-1 2 (Februar

y 20 , 1997) , p . 9 . However , a n "assault " fo

r ou r purpose s include s "battery. " A s th e Administrator ha s stated , th e term s frequently ar e use d interchangeabl

y an dthe distinctio n between the mha s bee n blurred . Ignatov , p . 9 n . 8 .2 0

force dt o delay neede dattentio n t o certai n passengers , a s wel l a s th e flight's beverag e an d snac k service , becaus e "w e wer e focusin g all o f ou r attentio n o n Ms . Tahair a.. . w e wer e dealin g with he r

[Ms . Tahaira ] always. . . constantl y movin g he r ou t o f th e exi t row " ( 1 Tr . 196 ; 2 Tr . 365 ; I.D. , pp . 8-9) . Ms . Steven s summarize dtha t Ms . Tahaira' s conduc t

wa s a"hug e distraction " ( 1 * Tr . 222) . " . . . w e wer e constantl y movin g Ms . Tahair afro mth e exi t ro w t o he r

origina l seat , an di t

was very , very disruptive , ver y distracting " ( 1 Tr . 223 ; I.D. , p . 9) . Thes e circumstance s mak e ou t aviolatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . §121.58 0 1 3 I n thi s connectio n i t

i s importan t

t o not e tha t

flight attendant s ar e no t

servants . The y ar e not

o n boar dprimaril y t o promot e passenge r comfort . Thei r

principa l dut y i s t o ensur e th e passengers ' safet y an dsecurity . Fligh t attendant s performvita l safety function s aboar doperatin g aircraft . The y mus t b e prepare dt o respon dt o in-fligh t emergencie s a s wel l a s guarante e tha t passenger s an dluggag e ar e prepare dproperl y fo r critica l phase s o f

flight suc h a s landing . Fligh t attendants mus t

alway s b e full y read y t o dea l with matter s whic h pos e aris k t o th e safet

y an dsecurity o f

flight, suc h a s turbulence , rapidcabi n decompression , o r wors e (see , e.g. . Southwes t

Airline s Co. , 199 7 W L 3363192 9 (Initia l Decisio n o f Administrativ e La w Judg e Burto n S . Kolko) , Januar y 23 , 1997 , p . 5) . Suc h concern s ar e no t

theoretical . Th e FA A reporte da n averag e o f 1 8 "serious " injurie s pe r

year ove r th e five-year

perio d1996-200 0 o n accoun t o f turbulenc e (Aviatio n Safety : Fisca l Yea

r 200 8 Busines s Plan , p . 9 , foun dat www.faa.80v) . Th e story o f th e U S Airway s flight

o f Januar y 15 , 200 9 whic h ditche di n th e Hudso n Rive r shortl y afte

r tciking of f fro mNe w York

City' s LaGuardi aAirpor t i s well-known ; wha t

perhap s i s no t a s well-appreciate da s th e captain' s heroic s i s th e rol e o f th e flight attendants . Th e passenger s wer e save dno t onl y throug h th e skil l an dpois e o f th e cockpit , bu t

als o o n accoun t o f th e coo l professionalis munde r exceptionall y tryin g circumstance s o f th e cabi n crew . Fligh t

attendants ar e essentia l t o saf e flight. I

f aflight attendan t ha s t o spen da

n inordinat e amoun t

o f tim e with acontrar y an duncooperativ e passenger , h e o r sh e woul d b e unacceptabl y compromise di n managin g suc h criticall y importan t duties . Se e Shelle y Louis e Conger , FA A Orde r No . 2007- 8 (Augus t

2 , 2007) , p . 1 2 n . 15 ; Pete r Houtenbos , FA A Orde r

No . 2002-2 4 (November 22 , 2002) , p . 11 .

' ^ Sinc e section 121.58 0 i s writte n using th e disjunctiv e "or, " Responden t ma y b e chargedwit

h assaul t unde r i t eve n in th e absenc e o

f interference . Evgeni

y v . Ignatov , FA

A Orde r No . 96-6 , 199 6 W

L 21009 8 (Februar y 13 , 1996) , p . 4 . However , 4 9 U.S.C . §46318 , th e subject o f th e thir dcharg e agains t

Respondent , addresse s itsel

f onl y t o assaul t o r threa t o f assault on afligh t crew membe

r (see I.D. , pp . 1-2) , s o th e question o f assaul t wa s considere dunde

r tha t statute . Se

e section II.C.3 . above , pp . 19-20 .2 1

III . Penalt y I wil l asses s atota l civi l penalt y agains t Ms . Tahair ao f

$6,000 . Th e penalt y consist s of

: 1 ) $1,00 0 fo r

on e violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . §121.580 ; 2 ) $1,00 0 fo r aminimu m o f fiv e violation s o f

1 4 C.F.R . §121.585(c) ; an d3 ) $4,00 0 for tw o violation s o f

4 9 U.S.C . §46318 . A penalt y assessmen t

mus t weig h arespondent' s behavio r an devaluat e it s effect . It mus t reflec t th e totalit y o f

th e circumstance s surroundin g th e violations . Folsom' s Ai r Service , Inc. , 200 8 W L 494848 8 (Novembe r 6 , 2008) , FA A Orde r

No . 2008-11 , p . 4 . I n thi s light , I fin dtha t

an assessmen t

o f $6,00 0 i s full y warranted . Ms . Tahaira' s action s no t onl y wer e demonstrabl y i n violatio n o f th e FAR s cite dan d4 9 U.S.C . §46318 , a Federa l statute , bu t

Ms . Tahair aals o was belligeren t an ddefian t

int o th e bargain . Ms . Tahair arefuse dt o hee dflight attendan t instruction s regardin g exit-ro w seatin g multipl e times . Ms . Tahair acommitte da n assaul t o n aflight

attendan t at leas t twice . He r

unlawfu l behavio r

consume dgrea t

amount s o f

flight-attendant

tim e becaus e i t occurre ds o man y times , an dove r an extende dperiod . Ms . Tahaira' s behavio r require d tw o flight attendants t o giv e he r disproportionat e amount s o f thei r time , thereb y divertin g the mfro mthei r

safety an dservic e responsibilities . Ms . Tahaira' s conduc t create da n imdu e ris k

o f dange r ha dan unsaf

e situatio n developed . Additionally , Ms . Tahair aelevate dth e leve l o f tensio n i n a

n alread y difficul t situatio n (an ddisturbe dslumberin g passengers ) b y he r groimdles s an doutrageou s full

throatedaccusation s agains t th e cre w o f

religiou s discrimination . Th e characte r

o f Ms . Tahaira' s behavio r

significantl y threatene dth e flight attendants ' authority , and , b y doin g so , undermine dth e integrit y o f aproces s primaril y designe dt o ensur e saf

e an dsecur e trave l fo r

passenger s an dcrew . Michae l Bengry , FA A Orde r No . 2003- 9 (Septembe r

12 , 2003) , pp . 9 , 10 . A flight attendan t wh o i s require dt o juggl e critica l safety a s wel l a s servic e responsibilitie s i n ameta l tub e hurtlin g throug h th e ai r at 30,00 0 fee t

mus t b e fre e fro mpassenge r

misconduct . Agains t

thi s background , Ms . Tahaira' s behavio r

merit s asignifican t

sanction . Indeed , th e FA A ha dsubstantia l caus e t o sugges t

ahighe r penalty , whic h I migh t

wel l hav e assesse dha di t bee n pled.*' * Ms . Tahair aasserte dtha t sh e i s unabl e t o affordapenalty . Becaus e o f that , non e shoul db e assesse deve n if violation s ar e foimd , Ms . Tahair aargue s (Resp . Br. , p . 2) . Th e

'^ Sinc e th e maximu

mcivi l penalt

y fo r a§4631 8 violatio n i s $25,000 , agreate r penalt y on tha t coun t coul d hav e been sought . However , acivi l penalt y greate r tha n tha t sough t b y th e agency ma

y not b e assessed . §13.160) . The evidenc e suggestedcharge s in additio n t o dios e preferred . Ms . Steven s testifiedtha t Ms . Tahair

alef t he r sea t "man y times " whe

n th e seat-belt

sign wa s lit afte r the fligh t attendan t ha dremindedhe

r not t o d o so . I.D. , p . 8 . Suc

h conduct violate s FA

R§121.317( 0 an

d(k) . Ms . Tahair

aals o pushedpas t

fligh t attendant s Rojas an

dSteven s (see I.D. , pp . 6 , 7 ) - conduct whic h promptedMs . Stevens ' telephone call t o th e captain - an

dtossedasafet

y information car

di n th e directio n o

f th e fligh t attendant s (I.D. , p . 6 (Stevens)) , action s whic

h wer e not chargedi n th e Complain

t but arguabl y constitute da

t leas t two additiona l assaults .2 2

defens e o f

inabilit y t o pa y i s considere da n affirmativ e defense . A part y raisin g an affirmativ e defens e mus t

prov e it . See , e.g. , Daw n M . Lewis , FA A Orde r No . 91- 3 (February 4 , 1991) , p . 8 ; I . D. , p . 2 . Ms . Tahaira' s proo f failed . I n suppor t

o f he r defense , Ms . Tahair aintroduce da n unsworn , unauthenticate d documen t purportin g t o sho w tha t

sh e receive s publi c assistance . Ms . Tahair aan dhe r * son , Ma t Chaudhry (wh o wa s no t

apassenge r

o n thi s flight), testifie dthat Ms . Tahair a receive s $33 9 pe r

mont h i n genera l assistanc e welfar e benefits, an dha s n o othe r incom e ( 2 Tr . 445-46 , 508 ; Exh . R-3) . I t i s recognize dtha t

welfar e benefit s wil l no t b e extende d unles s nee dunde r

loca l standard s i s demonstrate d(se e Resp . Br. , p . 27) . Othe r evidence , however , suggeste dtha t

fund s ar e availabl e t o Ms . Tahair asufficien t t o affordacivi l penalt y i n th e amoun t

assessed . Ms . Tahair aan dhe r so n eac h testifie dtha t

Ms . Tahair a flies t o an dfro mPakista n ever y year . Ms . Tahair aha s bee n "traveling " - presumabl y b y ai r ~ for twent y yeai's.' ^ Accordin g t o Mr . Chaudhry , hi s mothe r wa s suppose dt o fly t o Pakista n ye t

agai n thi s pas t

February , jus t

thre e month s after

th e travel s involve di n thi s proceedin g ( 2 Tr . 506) . W e tak e notic e tha t suc h frequen t

an dlength y travel s ar e no t inexpensive . The y requir e funds . I n ligh t o f th e fac t tha t i t i s Ms . Tahaira' s burde n t o demonstrat e inabilit y t o pay , i t wa s incumben t

upo n he r t o explai n wh y thi s apparen t sourc e o f substantia l an dcontinuin g incom e shoul dnot fatall y impai r

he r defens e o f inabilit y t o pa y afine . Ms . Tahair adi dno t d o so . Record s tha t

areasonabl e perso n woul daccep t

a s reliabl e an dprobativ e o n th e issue s o f incom e an dexpenses , suc h a s financia l statements , ta x returns , an dth e like , migh t hav e helpe dt o demonstrat e inabilit y t o pay . Ms . Tahair aals o faile dt o produc e an y record s showin g ho w sh e afford s bot h day-to-da y expenses , suc h a s foo dan dhousin g costs , an drelativel y larg e bu t recurrin g expenses , suc h a s th e cost s o f internationa l ai r

travel . In thes e circumstances , I fin dtha t Ms . Tahair afaile dt o prov e tha t sh e i s unabl e t o affor

dth e civi l penalt y assessed . He r defens e o f

inabilit y t o pa y fails . Se e Conques t Airlines , FA A Orde r

No . 1994-2 0 (Jun e 22 , 1994) , pp . 3-4 . Th e discussio n o f

penalt y als o mus t

accoun t for Ms . Tahaira' s emotiona l an d physica l state. Th e evidenc e showe dtha t Ms . Tahair aha dbee n travelin g fo r a t leas t 2 8 hour s whe n sh e boarde dflight 83 . Sh e i s elderl y - he r

so n testifie dtha t

sh e ma y i n fac t b e fiv e year s olde r

tha n he r "official " ag e a

t th e tim e o f

th e flight o f 6 9 ( 2 Tr . 512 ) - an d sh e allege dtha t

sh e continue s t o suffer

fro mvariou s healt h problem s ( 2 Tr . 451-53 , 504

- 05 , 507-08 ; se e I.D. , p . 3) . Sh e entere dan dexite dth e aircraft , an dth e courtroom , i n a wheelchair . O n th e flight sh e testifie dtha t

ha dbee n tire dan dwor n ou t fromhe r particularl y gruelin g travel s (se e 2 Tr . 513) . Sh e allege dtha t sh e ha dfel t

ill . Sh e ha d hope dt o li e dow n an drest . Ye t wit h du e regar dfor

Ms . Tahaira' s persona l circumstances , the y ma y no t mitigate , muc h les s excuse , he r conduc t towar dth e flight

attendants . Th e Administrato r ha s underscore dtha t

"[u]nde r n o circumstance s i s i t

appropriat e fo r

apassenge r

t o

' ' I.D. , p . 3 . Ms . Tahair

aals o testifiedtha

t she ha s livedi

n the UnitedState s fo

r the pas t ten years . 2 Tr . 443 . I f bot h statement s ar

e correct , the

n Respondent' s travel s betwee n approximatel

y 198 9 an d199 9 apparentl y wer e betwee n Pakista n an dapoin t o r point s outside the UnitedStates . The recor ddoe s not indicat e wha t thes e point s migh

t hav e been .2 3

assaul t aflight attendan t b y grabbin g an dyanking " tha t flight attendant' s person . Shelle y Louis e Conger , FA A Orde r No . 2007- 8 (Augus t

2 , 2007) , p . 2 1 (emphasi s supplied) . Moreover , w e liv e toda y i n aparticularl y safety

- an dsecurity-attune d environment . Ms . Tahaira , a s avetera n traveler , surel y mus t b e awar e o f

tha t fact . ' ^ In * suc h a n atmospher e i t

i s imperativ e tha t

airlin e passenger s refrai n fro minterferin g wit h th e crew' s responsibilitie s - muc h les s defyin g the mrepeatedl y an dassaultin g an y o f thei r numbe r - regardles s o f

thei r persona l situation . Respec t for th e crew' s authorit y i s essential . Nothin g les s ca n b e tolerated . Hillar dAbroms , 200 8 W L 345387 , FA A Orde r No . 2008- 2 (Januar y 28 , 2008) , p . 6 ; se e als o Shelle y Louis e Conger , FA A Orde r No . 2007- 8 (Augus t

2,2007) , pp . 21-22 . Agains t thi s background , I findtha t acivi l penalt y o f

$6,00 0 i s appropriate . I t i s warrante db y th e totalit y o f th e circumstances . I t

wil l promot e respec t

fo r prope r conduc t aboar daircraf

t an dfo r th e safet y an dsecurit y responsibilitie s associate dwit h ai r transport . Th e penalt y wil l ac t a s adeterren t

t o Ms . Tahair aan dt o othe r passengers . I t wil l fiilfill th e statutor y purpose . O n th e basi s o f

th e foregoing , I hereb y asses s agains t Respondent , Tala t

Tahaira , a civi l penalt y o f

$1,00 0 fo r

on e violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . §121.580 ; acivi l penalt y o f $1,00 0 fo r five violation s o f

1 4 C.F.R . §121.585(c) ; an dacivi l penalt y o f $4,00 0 fo r

tw o violation s o f

4 9 U.S.C . §46318 , for

atota l civi l penalt y o f

$6,000.'' ' S O ORDERED . [Kichar dC . tfoodwi n U.S . Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

' * Compar e the Administrator' s admonishmen t t o aresponden

t tha t he "shoul dhav e realize dth e importanc e of complianc e becaus e he wa s a n experience dflier. " Hillar dAbroms , 200 8 W L 345387 , FA

A Orde r No . 2008- 2 (Januar

y 28 , 2008) , p . 7 . '^ Thi s decisio n ma

y b e appeale dt o th e Administrator o f th e FAA . The notic e o f

appea l mus t confor mt o section s 13.210 , 13.211(e) an d13.23 3 o f

th e Rule s of

Practice , whic

h requir e tha t anotic e o f

appea l 1 ) b e file dnot late r tha n 1 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l fiv e day s if mailed) fromth

e servic e dat

e of thi s decision , and2 ) b e perfectedwit

h awritten brie f

or memorandu

mnot late r tha n 5 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l five, i f mailed) fromth e servic e dat e of thi s decision . Th

e notic e of appea l an dbrief or memorandu

mmus t eithe r b e a) mailedto the Federa

l Aviation Adminisfration , 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , DC 20591 , Attn : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , or

b ) delivere d personally o

r vi aexpedite dcourie

r servic e to the Federa

l Aviation Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . A copy of th e notic e of

appea l an dbrie f or memorandu

mals o mus t

b e sen t to agency counsel . Servic e upo

n th e presidin g judg e i s optional .FA A Docke t No . CP09NM000 6 (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-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Lawrenc e A . Hildes , Attorne y La w Office s o f

Lawrenc e A . Hilde s P.O . Bo x 540 5 Bellingham , WA 9822 7 TEL : 360-715-978 8 FAX : 360-714-179 1 Kare n Davi s Huber , Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 160 1 Lin dAvenu e S.W . Renton , WA 98057-335 6 TEL : 425-227-216 7 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groim dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa

s by U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e th

e following address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , DC 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .