T'Tif-M 

SERVED MARCH 17, 2010 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

TALAT TAHAIRA, 

Respondent. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09NM0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0273 

INITIAL DECISION 

OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

Found: 1) Ms. Tahaira violated 14 C.F.R. §§121.580 and 121.585(c) and 49 U.S.C. 

§46318 as charged in the complaint; 

2) Ms. Tahaira is hereby assessed a civil penalty of $6,000. 

I. The Complaint and Answer 

This is a civil penalty matter in the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation 

Administration ("Complainant," "FAA," or "agency"). It concerns allegations of 

passenger misconduct against Ms. Talat Tahaira ("Tahaira" or "Respondent"). The case 

was assigned to the undersigned administrative law judge ("AU") by Notice dated April 

3, 2009. 

Ms. Tahaira was a passenger aboard JetBlue Airlines flight 83 on November 8, 

2008. The flight operated nonstop from New York City's John F. Kermedy International 

Airport ("JFK") to Seattle, WA. The FAA brought a Complaint against Ms. Tahaira, 

charging that she violated two Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs") and a Federal 

statute. The Complaint alleges that Ms. Tahaira violated 1) section 12L580 of the FARs, 

14 C.F.R. §121.580, in that she "assaulted, threatened, intimidated or interfered with 

crewmembers in the performance of their duties aboard an aircraft being operated" 

(Complaint, §111, ^l.a); 2) section 121.585(c) of the FARs, 14 C.F.R. §121.585(c), in 

failing to comply with the instructions of a crewmember regarding exit seating 
restrictions (§111, lll.b); and 3) 49 U.S.C. §46318 (§111, P) . That statute makes an 

individual who assaults or threatens to assault a member of a flight crew liable for a civil 

penalty of up to $25,000. The agency requests a total civil penalty on the three charges of 

$6,000. 

Ms. Tahaira denied the charges. Ms. Tahaira's Answer denies violating either * 

federal law or any FAR. She asserts that flight attendants "racially harassed, humiliated, 

and verbally abused" her (Answer, §1, ^1). "Had Ms. Tahaira not been of South Asian 

descent," the Answer contends, "this incident would never have occurred." (§11,116). 

The Answer also asserts that due to the "frivolous" and "improperly motivated" nature of 

the Complaint, Ms. Tahaira is entitled to "[rjeasonable attorney's fees for having to 

respond to this improper action" and "[a] full and formal apology." (§111, %5; see also 

Respondent's Posthearing Brief, p. 2 ("the Agency owe[s] Ms. Tahaira an apology for 

putting her through the incident and this process")). 

I held a hearing on May 27 and 28, 2009, in Seattle. Briefs have been filed and 

the matter now is ready for decision. 

Procedural rules applicable to this proceeding are contained in Subpart G of Part 

13 of volume 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("C.F.R."), entitled Rules of Practice 

in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. §13.201 et seq. ("the Rules"). For the agency to 

prevail, it must establish proof of the violations alleged by a preponderance of the 

reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. 14 C.F.R. §§13.223 and 224(a); Toyota 

Motor Sales, FAA Order No. 94-28, pp. 6-7 (September 30, 1994), 1994 FAA Lexis 275, 

p. 10. (The more rigorous "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to which the government 

is held in criminal cases does not apply to FAA civil penalty cases. See, e.g., 

Envirosolve, LLC, FAA Order No. 2006-2 (February 7, 2006), 2006 WL 465371, p. 4, 

pet. for review dismissed sub nom. Envirosolve, LLC v. FAA, 2007 WL 273780 (D.C. Cir. 

January 20, 2007)). 

Ms. Tahaira has the burden of proving any affirmative defense by the same 

standard to which the government is held in proving its case. 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.224(c); 

American Air Network, FAA Order No. 2008-10 (October 7, 2008), 2008 WL 4948487, 

p. 13. 

I stress that this case is about the conduct of Ms. Tahaira aboard JetBlue flight 83. 

More specifically, it about whether Ms. Tahaira's actions during that flight violated 

provisions of the FARs and a Federal statute as set forth above. 

I hold that Complainant proved its case on all counts for the reasons set forth 

below. No mitigating factors were present. The facts and circumstances warrant an 

assessment against Ms. Tahaira of $6,000. 

' Citations from the transcript of the first day of the hearing will begin with "1 Tr."; citations from the 

second day, "2 Tr." Citations to the briefs will be "Compl. Br." for Complainant's Posthearing Brief, and 

"Resp. Br." for Respondent's Posthearing Brief. Complainant chose not to file a Rebuttal Brief. 
II. Discussion 

A. Background 

The Respondent, Talat Tahaira, lives in the Seattle area. She was bom in presentday Pakistan (2 Tr. 441, 512). Ms. Tahaira stated that she has been a resident in the * 

United States for ten years (2 Tr. 443) and is an American citizen. At her request, a 

certified court interpreter in Urdu, a language of the region of her origin, was provided to 

translate questions for her and to translate her responses {see 1 Tr. 4; 2 Tr. 440). 

At the time of the flight which led to this proceeding, Ms. Tahaira was 69 years 

old (2 Tr. 511-12). At the hearing she appeared slight and frail. Since 2000, according to 

an unsworn physician's record, she has been treated for several ailments, including 

diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, and an unspecified heart condition. Ms. Tahaira stated 

that she was taking several medications at the time of the flight (Exh. R-2; 2 Tr. 451-53, 

504-05, 507-08). Ms. Tahaira testified that at that time "I could walk, I was okay,"^ but 

she entered and exited the aircraft in a wheelchair, according to the flight attendants (see, 

e.g., 1 Tr. 245). 

Ms. Tahaira testified that she flies to Lahore, Pakistan, every year, having a home 

and children there (2 Tr. 443). She added that she has been traveling for twenty years (2 

Tr. 458, 478). It is the final leg of Tahaira's return flight from Lahore to Seattle in 2008 

which is immediately germane to this proceeding. 

According to Ms. Tahaira's testimony, the first two segments of her journey 

proceeded as scheduled. She flew from Lahore to Dubai, a six-hour flight. Following a 

two-hour layover in Dubai, she flew to New York City's JFK Airport. That leg took ten 

hours. At JFK she missed her planned cormection (on American Airlines) to Seattle. As 

a result, Ms. Tahaira said, she had to wait an additional ten hours before boarding JetBlue 

on a nonstop flight to Seattle (2 Tr. 458-60; Resp. Br., pp. 2-3). By then it was evening, 

local time (1 Tr. 154). At least 28 hours - more than one full day - had elapsed since 

Ms. Tahaira boarded her initial flight to Dubai in Pakistan.^ 

JetBlue's aircraft was an Airbus A320. It contained twenty-five rows of six seats 

each, constituting three seats on either side of a single aisle (1 Tr. 148, 185-86). The 

crew consisted of a pilot, first officer, and three flight attendants. The flight was slightly 

more than half full (2 Tr. 316). Ms. Tahaira was assigned seat 9F (1 Tr. 191; 2 Tr. 357-

58, 461). 

Among the twenty-five rows are exit rows situated over the wing. One is 

designated row 11 (2 Tr. 361). Federal regulations stipulate that passengers seated in exit 

^ 2 Tr. 448. Unless otherwise noted, Ms. Tahaira's testimony is as rendered in English by the translator. 

' Ms. Tahaira thought that more time had elapsed. She testified that, at a point early in the New YorkSeattle flight, she already had been traveling for 36 hours. 2 Tr. 456. It is unclear how she arrived at that 

total. 
rows be capable of performing duties required in an emergency. Passengers must meet 

certain criteria. They must, among other things, have sufficient mobility, strength, or 

dexterity to operate emergency-exit mechanisms; understand oral commands given by a 

crewmember in English; and speak English well enough to give oral commands to other 

passengers (14 C.F.R. §121.585(b); Exh. C-10 (excerpt from JetBlue Flight Attendant 

Manual), pp. 2-4; 1 Tr. 62, 178, 186-88, 229; 2 Tr. 415). 

B. Summary of On-Board Witnesses' Testimony 

1. Laura Clampitt 

Laura Clampitt was the first percipient witness to testify. Ms. Clampitt was an 

American Airlines flight attendant, a veteran of 17 years' service, who was traveling on 

this flight as a passenger. She was commuting home (1 Tr. 146-47, 160). 

Ms. Clampitt sat in row 11, an exit row. One of the flight attendants, knowing 

that Ms. Clampitt was also a flight attendant, had requested that she sit there. Ms. 

Clampitt occupied a window seat, on the left side of the aircraft as one faces forward 

toward the cockpit (1 Tr. 149-150, 168). 

After takeoff, Ms. Clampitt noticed a passenger, later identified as Ms. Tahaira, 

move to an unoccupied bank of seats directly opposite her. This bank of seats also was 

an exit row. Ms. Clampitt observed and heard flight attendants ask Ms. Tahaira if she 

was capable of handling responsibilities associated with sitting there. Ms. Tahaira replied 

in the negative, Ms. Clampitt said. Ms. Clampitt heard Ms. Tahaira explain to the crew 

members that she had moved there simply because she was tired and not feeling well. 

Since Ms. Tahaira did not meet the criteria for sitting in that row, the flight attendants 

told her, it was necessary for her to move. Ms. Tahaira returned to her assigned seat two 

rows forward (1 Tr. 150-51, 154, 163, 180). 

As soon as the flight attendants left the aisle, Ms. Clampitt observed Ms. Tahaira 

return to the exit row. Ms. Clampitt again heard the flight attendants ask her to move. 

Ms. Clampitt heard Ms. Tahaira ask why she had to move; Ms. Tahaira explained that she 

was tired and just wanted to sleep. Ms. Tahaira returned to her original seat again, but 

came back to the exit row at least one more time, according to the witness. 

Each time Ms. Tahaira entered the exit row, Ms. Clampitt said, she lay down (1 

Tr. 173). At some point the flight attendants flipped over the exit-row seat cushions in an 

apparent attempt to thwart Ms. Tahaira, but Ms. Tahaira returned once again (1 Tr. 151). 

Ms. Clampitt saw Ms. Tahaira enter and leave the exit row three times in all (1 Tr. 172). 

Ms. Clampitt described Ms. Tahaira's demeanor during these interactions as "a 

little bit difficult." By contrast, Ms. Clampitt stated, the flight attendants involved were 

"very polite" and "really nice" (1 Tr. 155). Ms. Clampitt added that Ms. Tahaira 

appeared to "clearly" understand the flight attendant's instructions, because she did return 
to her assigned seat several times (1 Tr. 156). Ms. Clampitt later testified, "I think she 

[Ms. Tahaira] understood the direction to leave the seat" (1 Tr. 163). 

The witness also heard Ms. Tahaira claim that the flight attendants' treatment of 

her was on account of her Muslim heritage. "You're being very rude to me; it's because 

I'm Muslim," Ms. Clampitt quoted Ms. Tahaira as saying (1 Tr. 175-76; Exh. C-6). "* 

At some point, Ms. Clampitt stated, the flight attendants attempted to find a 

different unoccupied row to enable Ms. Tahaira to stretch out. When the flight first left 

JFK, there had been more than enough empty rows. Eventually no unoccupied rows 

remained. As an evening flight, and one in which the crew kept the aircraft unlit, other 

passengers had by that time already laid out to rest in every formerly unoccupied row (1 

Tr. 154). 

2. Leah Stevens 

Leah Stevens was the "number one," or lead, flight attendant on the flight. She 

was responsible for the passengers in rows 1 through 8 (1 Tr. 185). 

Ms. Stevens testified that she first became involved with Ms. Tahaira after the 

"number two" flight attendant, Rosalind Rojas, who was responsible for the row in which 

Ms. Tahaira had been assigned, asked for her assistance in moving a passenger 

attempting to sit in an exit row. Ms. Rojas, according to Ms. Stevens' "Inflight 

Disturbance Report" submitted shortly after disembarkation, had "kindly" asked the 

passenger to leave seat 1 ID, an exit-row seat, and return to her original seat, 9F (Exh. C14). Ms. Stevens approached the passenger, Ms. Tahaira. Ms. Tahaira told Ms. Stevens 

that she had paid for business class. JetBlue, the flight attendant replied, does not have 

business class.'* Ms. Stevens then asked Ms. Tahaira to return to 9F (1 Tr. 191). 

In response, Ms. Stevens received what she described as a "blank look." She 

believed that Ms. Tahaira had failed to understand her. Ms. Tahaira had told Ms. Stevens 

that she did not speak English. Ms. Stevens felt, however, that Ms. Tahaira "spoke 

broken English" (1 Tr. 246). Ms. Stevens concluded that Ms. Tahaira did not speak 

English "clear enough" to sit in an exit row (1 Tr. 229). 

1 Tr. 191; Exh. C-14. By company policy, JetBlue Inflight Disturbance Reports (IDFs) are placed online. 

The referenced IDF is an e-mail purportedly addressed to the online repository of such documents. The email's "author" is listed as an individual other than Ms. Stevens, a person later identified as a JetBlue 

customer service agent. See Exh. C-14, p. 1. Ms. Stevens explained that the anomaly resulted from the 

agent supplying the password and logging on for her because she was preoccupied with police questioning. 

Ms. Stevens signed the statement. I found that Ms. Stevens is its author. The DDF also was submitted to 

the Port of Seattle Police Department. See 1 Tr. 216-21. 

Ms. Stevens destroyed the notes upon which her statement is based. 1 Tr. 239. She said that the 

statement is a verbatim record of her notes, which she had written on board, plus additional things she 

remembered. She insisted that the notes contained nothing that was not put into the statement. 1 Tr. 237, 

239; 2 Tr. 342-44, 348-49. Her explanation is credible and is accepted. I reject the charge that the witness 

maliciously destroyed evidence. 1 Tr. 240. 
Ms. Stevens repeated her request to Ms. Tahaira to return to her original seat. She 

explained why she was making the request. Ms. Stevens added nonverbal 

communication, doing a lot of pointing. She also showed Ms. Tahaira a safety 

information card. This card explains the responsibilities of exit-row occupants.^ When 

Ms. Stevens asked Ms. Tahaira if she could read any of the card to the flight attendant in 

English, Ms. Tahaira "took the card and flicked it," "threw it" on the floor and said "no"* 

(1 Tr. 191-92, 230; 2 Tr. 335; see Exh. C-11). Momentarily Ms. Tahaira did return to 

her seat (1 Tr. 191-92). 

At some point - Ms. Stevens could not remember the exact sequence - the flight 

attendant concluded from Ms. Tahaira's reaction to her verbal and non-verbal 

communication that Ms. Tahaira did not want to return to her original seat. At one point 

Ms. Tahaira indicated that the passenger sitting next to her in row 9 had been bothering 

her (1 Tr. 193; Exh. C-14). Ms. Stevens and the number two flight attendant, Ms. Rojas, 

showed Ms. Tahaira empty rows to rest in. There were at least three, and possibly up to 

six, such rows, she remembered (Exh. C-14; 1 Tr. 194, 267). It appeared that sometimes 

Ms. Tahaira "didn't understand us," Ms. Stevens said (1 Tr. 194); other times Ms. 

Tahaira answered "no" or shook her head (1 Tr. 197, 198). The flight attendants got Ms. 

Tahaira to return to her original seat by transporting her purse there. Ms. Tahaira 

followed her purse (1 Tr. 194, 197, 202). 

On one occasion, Ms. Stevens said, Ms. Tahaira "got up and pushed past us," but 

instead of walking to an exit row, she proceeded aft to row 16, where a passenger, later 

identified as Rashida Dutt, appeared to be able to communicate with her. The passengers 

spoke to one another. Ms. Dutt offered to translate for the flight attendants (1 Tr. 199, 

225, 255, 258-59; 2 Tr. 320-21). 

Ms. Stevens told Ms. Dutt that Ms. Tahaira could not sit in an exit row and 

explained why. Ms. Dutt apparently translated, because Ms. Stevens saw Ms. Tahaira 

nod her head in seeming understanding (1 Tr. 199, 209). During this exchange another 

notable incident took place. While Ms. Stevens was leaning down toward Ms. Tahaira, 

sitting in an aisle seat of row 16, on the aircraft's left side, suddenly "popped," or tapped. 

' The FARs, §121.585(d), require air carriers such as JetBlue to "include on passenger information cards, 

presented in the language in which briefings and oral commands are given by the crew, at each exit seat 

... , information that, in the event of an emergency in which a crewmember is not available to assist, a 

passenger occupying an exit seat may use if called upon to perform the following functions: 

(1) Locate the emergency exit; 

(2) Recognize the emergency exit opening mechanism; 

(3) Comprehend the instructions for operating the emergency exit; 

(4) Operate the emergency exit; 

(5) Assess whether opening the emergency exit will increase the hazards to which passengers 

may be exposed; 

(6) Follow oral directions and hand signals given by a crewmember; 

(7) Stow or secure the emergency exit door so that it will not impede use of the exit; 

(8) Assess the condition of an escape slide, activate the slide, and stabilize the slide after 

deployment to assist others in getting off the slide; 

(9) Pass expeditiously through the emergency exit; and 

(10) Assess, select, and follow a safe path away from the emergency exit." 
the flight attendant in the face. Ms. Tahaira did this three times (1 Tr. 200; see also 1 Tr. 

210; 2 Tr. 346; Exh. C-14). Ms. Stevens warned Ms. Tahaira to refrain from touching 

her face (1 Tr. 200; Exh. C-14). 

Ms. Dutt told the flight attendant that Ms. Tahaira was very tired and wanted to 

lie down. Ms. Stevens offered an empty row. Ms. Tahaira declined (1 Tr. 200, 265; Exff. 

C-14). The empty rows in the meantime filled up with reclining passengers. By the time 

the beverage and snack service was over, all rows were occupied save the exit row (1 Tr. 

204, 266, 268). Ms. Tahaira at that point asked Ms. Stevens to wake up other passengers 

so she could lie down. Ms. Stevens declined to do so (1 Tr. 266). 

Ms. Tahaira continued to try and sit in an exit row. Ms. Stevens testified that Ms. 

Tahaira "pinballed" between rows, going back and forth between her original seat (in row 

9), the exit row nearest her seat (row 11), and the aisle seat next to Ms. Dutt, who was 

seated in 16B, the middle seat of row 16 on the aircraft's left side (1 Tr. 208-09; 2 Tr. 

360, 387). 

Ms. Stevens added that after the three flight attendants had finished their service, 

Ms. Tahaira walked up to them in the back galley and said, "Everyone here is white. It's 

because I am Muslim. That's why you won't let me lay down." (1 Tr. 203-04; Exh. C14). Ms. Stevens reacted with shock. She testified that she had "no idea" of 

Respondent's religion (1 Tr. 204). 

Then, according to Ms. Stevens, Ms. Tahaira - in an apparent attempt to 

demonstrate that the rows were filled up ~ "grabbed me by my left wrist and pulled me" 

forward. Ms. Stevens added that Ms. Tahaira "had strength when she grabbed my arm .. 

. I don't believe she was incapacitated" (1 Tr. 210-11). The flight attendant had to brace 

herself on the galley counter to keep from falling forward. She nearly fell anyway (1 Tr. 

210-11). 

As a result of Ms. Tahaira's yank, a bruise quickly formed on Ms. Stevens' 

forearm (1 Tr. 211, 252-53; Exh. C-14). The flight attendant photographed it with her 

cell phone camera when she got to her hotel room after landing (1 Tr. 211; Exh. C-12). 

After the flight, a police officer also took a picture (Exh. C-13). The pictures show two 

bruises - evidenced by dark discoloration — on Ms. Stevens' left forearm, just above her 

wrist (Exhs. C-12 and C-13; 1 Tr. 213-14). 

Ms. Stevens told Ms. Tahaira to refrain from grabbing her. And Ms. Stevens told 

Ms. Tahaira that, although the flight attendants had tried to accommodate her, Ms. 

Tahaira now had no choice but to sit in her original seat (1 Tr. 205). 

Ms. Stevens walked with Ms. Tahaira forward, toward Ms. Tahaira's seat. Still in 

the aisle, Ms. Tahaira started "screaming," "It's because I'm a Muslim. You will not let 

me sit here because I am Muslim" (1 Tr. 205-06; see also 1 Tr. 233; Exh. C-14). This 

outburst awoke everyone in the area. Ms. Tahaira pushed past the flight attendants to 
again sit in the exit row (1 Tr. 206). Ms. Stevens again reminded Ms. Tahaira that she 

was not qualified to sit there (1 Tr. 206). 

At this point Ms. Stevens walked to the front of the aircraft and telephoned the 

captain. She explained to him that Ms. Tahaira was pushing past the crew, and had just 

grabbed her. She asked that JetBlue security personnel meet the flight (1 Tr. 206; Exh. * 

C-14). The captain instead decided to call the police (1 Tr. 207, 249). 

At about this time the flight attendants removed the seat cushions completely 

from row 11. As a result, the exit row contained only the metallic framework of the 

seats. Ms. Tahaira nonetheless sat there (1 Tr. 207; Exh. C-14). Ms. Stevens 

sununarized in her statement that "we offered her 3 entire seat banks to lie down and she 

refused to sit there," and that Ms. Tahaira "was offered and declined to lay down 

anywhere but the exit row." (Exh. C-14) 

Ms. Stevens said that she also reminded Ms. Tahaira to remain seated when the 

seat-belt light was on. Ms. Stevens issued this reminder "many times" (1 Tr. 226). Ms. 

Tahaira was out of her seat during ascent, when the seat-belt light was on (2 Tr. 314), and 

Ms. Tahaira was sitting in the exit row, perched on the metal bars, during final descent (1 

Tr. 226). These stages are especially critical phases of flight. See FAA v. Feazell, 1990 

WL 339154, SE-10550 (NTSB January 30, 1990). 

Ms. Stevens testified that Ms. Tahaira interfered with her duties. The constant 

moving disrupted her service (1 Tr. 251). The flight attendants were forced to delay the 

flight's beverage and snack service, to some passengers' chagrin (1 Tr. 196, 198). The 

flight attendants also postponed needed attention to other passengers. The delays were 

because "we were focusing all of our attention on Ms. Tahaira .. . we were dealing with 

her [Ms. Tahaira] always. .. constantly moving her out of the exit row. Every time we 

walked by, she was there" (1 Tr. 196). Ms. Stevens' statement adds, ".. . it seemed that 

we spent most of the flight dealing with the woman in 9F [Ms. Tahaira]" (Exh. C-14). 

Ms. Stevens believed that she and Ms. Rojas had moved Ms. Tahaira out of the exit row 

about 15 times between them (1 Tr. 197, 203, 250-51; 2 Tr. 317, 318). 

In sum, Ms. Stevens testified, Ms. Tahaira's conduct was a "huge distraction" for 

everyone (1 Tr. 222). ". . . we were constantly moving Ms. Tahaira from the exit row to 

her original seat, and it was very, very disruptive, very distracting" (1 Tr. 223). 

3. Rosalind Rojas 

Rosalind Rojas was the number two flight attendant on this flight, responsible for 

passengers in rows 9 through 16 (2 Tr. 354). After the aircraft reached 10,000 feet and 

she was making her way to the front of the aircraft from the aft galley, she testified, she 

noticed Ms. Tahaira in an exit row (2 Tr. 354-55). Ms. Rojas asked Ms. Tahaira if she 

understood that she was sitting in an emergency exit row, and if Ms. Tahaira was willing 

and able to take on the attendant responsibilities. Ms. Tahaira, Ms. Rojas said, did not 

appear to understand. Ms. Rojas then asked Ms. Tahaira if she understood, and repeated 
what she had said. Ms. Tahaira did not appear to comprehend. At some point Ms. Rojas 

asked Ms. Tahaira if she spoke English; Ms. Tahaira responded with a glare, as if, Ms. 

Rojas said, Ms. Tahaira did not understand what the flight attendant was saying. The 

flight attendant concluded that Ms. Tahaira could not read the safety information card. 

Ms. Rojas asked Ms. Tahaira to leave the exit row. Ms. Tahaira - who appeared to 

understand this request - said "no" (2 Tr. 356-57). 

Ms. Rojas walked forward to obtain assistance from Ms. Stevens. Ms. Tahaira 

was briefed a second time on the requirements for sitting in an emergency exit row (2 Tr. 

355-56, 378). When Ms. Stevens asked Ms. Tahaira to read something from the safety 

information card, Ms. Rojas testified, Ms. Tahaira threw it on the floor (2 Tr. 379-80, 

382-83). 

Throughout the flight the flight attendants asked Ms. Tahaira to leave the exit row 

"at least" or "approximately" 15 times (2 Tr. 357, 393). To those requests Ms. Tahaira 

had answered "No" or with a nod of her head (2 Tr. 357). At one point Ms. Tahaira left 

her seat and headed aft, Ms. Rojas said, "pushing through" herself and Ms. Stevens, 

before stopping at row 16, where Ms. Dutt sat in the middle seat, aircraft left (seat 16B) 

(2 Tr. 358, 360, 387). The flight attendants asked Ms. Dutt if she was family or a friend; 

Ms. Dutt replied in the negative. Ms. Stevens, according to Ms. Rojas, then asked Ms. 

Dutt if Ms. Dutt could translate, and Ms. Dutt replied that she could (2 Tr. 358). 

Ms. Rojas and Ms. Stevens asked Ms. Dutt to explain to Ms. Tahaira that her 

unfamiliarity with English prevented her from sitting in the exit row. Ms. Dutt 

apparently did so. Ms. Tahaira seemed to understand. Ms. Tahaira then "tapped" Ms. 

Stevens - tapped her hand on Ms. Stevens' face — three times. Ms. Stevens pulled back 

and asked Ms. Tahaira to "please not touch her." Ms. Tahaira remained, at least 

momentarily, seated next to Ms. Dutt, in the aisle seat of row 16, on the left side of the 

aircraft (2 Tr. 358-59, 384-85, 387; Exh. C-15). 

Ms. Rojas testified that she offered Ms. Tahaira other seats in which the passenger 

could lie down (2 Tr. 361). While she and Ms. Stevens began to search for empty rows, 

Ms. Tahaira moved back to the exit row; and when the flight attendants again offered 

other seats for her, Ms. Tahaira replied 'No.' (2 Tr. 361-62). ".. . we kept finding her 

back at the exit row, and kept going back and asking her to please move from the exit 

row" (2 Tr. 363; see also Exh. C-15). 

At one point, Ms. Rojas continued, she saw Ms. Tahaira walk toward the back of 

the aircraft, where Ms. Stevens was stzinding, facing forward. Ms. Tahaira grabbed Ms. 

Stevens' hand in an apparent attempt to pull Ms. Stevens toward the front. Ms. Tahaira 

pulled Ms. Stevens' wrist "with force," Ms. Rojas said (2 Tr. 370). Ms. Stevens said, 

"Ow!" and pulled her arm back (2 Tr. 363). Later on in the flight Ms. Rojas observed 

black-and-blue marks on Ms. Stevens' forearm — the result, she concluded, of this 

incident (2 Tr. 366, 383). 
10 

Ms. Rojas said that Ms. Tahaira raised her voice during the flight "several times" 

(2 Tr. 364). Ms. Rojas' written statement to the Port of Seattle Police, given shortly after 

landing, reiterates that "[Ms. Tahaira] raised her voice throughout the flight" (Exh. C-15; 

2 Tr. 366-67). 

Additionally, Ms. Tahaira, standing in the middle of the cabin at the exit row, "^ 

said, "You're doing this because I am Muslim." (2 Tr. 364). Ms. Rojas testified that she 

did not know Ms. Tahaira's religion (2 Tr. 364). Ms. Tahaira, she said, was not treated 

differently from other passengers (2 Tr. 371). 

Ms. Rojas stated that Ms. Tahaira interrupted her service. The service of drinks 

and snacks was delayed because she had to keep returning to the exit row to ask Ms. 

Tahaira to move from that row (2 Tr. 365). 

4. Adrienne Kate-Sanchez 

Adrienne Kate-Sanchez was the third flight attendant on this flight. She was 

responsible for the back of the aircraft (2 Tr. 400-01). 

Ms. Kate-Sanchez said that soon after the plane reached 10,000 feet, Ms. Tahaira 

came to the back of the cabin to use the rest room. Ms. Kate-Sanchez reminded her that 

the seat-belt light was on. Ms. Tahaira appeared to understand what was said; she 

pointed to her stomach, which the flight attendant took to mean that Ms. Tahaira felt ill. 

When Ms. Tahaira exited the lavatory, she requested (in English) some juice (2 Tr. 402-

03,414-15,421). 

Later, Ms. Kate-Sanchez was in the back galley when Ms. Tahaira approached, 

saying that everyone lying down in the seats was white. Ms. Tahaira then "grabbed [Ms. 

Stevens] by the wrist, with enough force to pull [Ms. Stevens] forward." (2 Tr. 404). 

Ms. Kate-Sanchez said that she told Ms. Tahaira that she was not permitted to do that. 

Ms. Tahaira, the flight attendant testified, appeared to understand, and she let go (2 Tr. 

405-06, 414, 421). Later Ms. Kate-Sanchez saw on Ms. Stevens' wrist a mark which she 

characterized as a "fresh bruise" (2 Tr. 406). 

Ms. Kate-Sanchez said that sometime after that, she told Ms. Tahaira that the 

passenger was not allowed in an exit row. Ms. Tahaira "cut me off, and yelled at me in a 

langiiage that I didn't understand, and walked away."^ 

Ms. Kate-Sanchez observed no difficulty in Ms. Tahaira's walking around the 

aircraft (2 Tr. 411, 423). She also said that she did not treat Ms. Tahaira any differently 

than any other passenger (2 Tr. 413). 

* 2 Tr. 407. Compare Ms. Kate-Sanchez' statement to the Seattle police, given shortly after disembarking, 

concerning the same interaction: Ms. Tahaira ".. . yelled at me in her native language and walked away." 

Exh. C-16. 
11 

5. Talat Tahaira 

Talat Tahaira, the respondent, testified in her own behalf 

Ms. Tahaira denied all the accusations against her. She denied grabbing any 

flight attendant (2 Tr. 456, 470). She denied having a strong grip (2 Tr. 457). She denied 

squeezing Ms. Stevens' arm (2 Tr. 490). She denied tapping Ms. Stevens, or anyone else, 

on the face, or touching anyone anywhere (2 Tr. 457). 

Ms. Tahaira also denied that any of the flight attendants had asked her if she was 

qualified to sit in the exit row. She added that she did not understand what they were 

saying to her (2 Tr. 464). She did not accuse the flight attendants of unfair treatment on 

account of being Muslim, she said. She never mentioned religion to the flight attendants 

at all. She denied yelling at any time (2 Tr. 470-71). 

Ms. Tahaira additionally said that the flight attendants forced her to sit with Ms. 

Dutt. Ms. Dutt did not offer to translate. Nor did the flight attendants ask Ms. Dutt to 

translate. And Ms. Dutt did not translate for her (2 Tr. 469-70). 

Ms. Tahaira also testified that she asked Ms. Stevens what would happen if she, 

Ms. Tahaira, died. According to Respondent, Ms. Stevens jokingly replied that Ms. 

Tahaira would be thrown from the window (2 Tr. 461-62, 480). 

Ms. Tahaira said that she had simply wanted to lie down and had expressed that, 

but that the flight attendants would not permit it (2 Tr. 462, 464). Three rows were 

empty, she said, but the flight attendants would not let her recline in any of them (2 Tr. 

463). The flight attendants "pushed" her into her seat (2 Tr. 490, 492). She never did 

anything to disrupt the flight attendants on the flight (2 Tr. 492). "I just wanted to lie 

down. That is all" (2 Tr. 492). 

The flight attendants told her that the reason why the passengers were permitted 

to lay in the empty banks of seats is because those passengers paid extra for those seats (2 

Tr. 463). Initially, she added, they would not let her return to her original seat; 

eventually, however, they did (2 Tr. 468). 

480). 

Finally, Ms. Tahaira said that she well knew what an emergency seat was (2 Tr. 

C. Findings 

1. Credibility 

Complainant's and Ms. Tahaira's witnesses gave dramatically conflicting 

accounts of the incidents which led to this action. As such, credibility determinations 

will significantly affect the outcome. The undersigned's conclusions on this issue are 

important because, as the Administrator has stated many times, "[t]he ALJ's credibility 
12 

assessments deserve great weight and are entitled to deference." See, e.g., Shelley Louise 

Conger, FAA Order No. 2007-8 (August 7, 2007), p. 13. To the same effect, our sister 

agency, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), requires that an ALJ's 

credibility findings be upheld "unless there is a compelling reason or the finding was 

clearly erroneous." Donald H. Dutton, 7 NTSB 521, 523 (October 10, 1990), 1990 WL 

339138, cited in Andrzejewski v. FAA, 563 F.2d 796, 799 (9 Cir. 2008). 

I generally trust and credit the testimony of Complainant's witnesses. I am 

largely discounting the testimony of Ms. Tahaira's only primary witness, Ms. Tahaira. In 

nearly every insteince, I have resolved conflicting accounts of the agency's witnesses and 

percipient's witness in favor of the agency. 

There are several reasons for my determination. I found Ms. Clampitt, Ms. 

Stevens, Ms. Rojas, and Ms. Kate-Sanchez individually to be credible. Their demeanor 

suggested trustworthiness. Their descriptions of events also conveyed sincerity. The 

witnesses were forthright. I saw no attempt to exaggerate or embroider events. I 

observed only attempts to recall the incidents with as much accuracy as possible. The 

witnesses' accounts rang true. 

Ms. Clampitt, it should be stressed, was a passenger on this flight. She was not 

involved in any of the incidents. As a flight attendant, and one of long standing, she was 

familiar with exit-row requirements and other safety matters affecting air transportation. 

And although she had been in the skies for 17 years (1 Tr. 146), she was only briefly 

acquainted with one of the flight attendants working this flight and had never met the 

other two (1 Tr. 160). She was not employed by JetBlue. She had no stake in the 

outcome of this case. I find that she was a disinterested observer. Indeed, she was the 

only disinterested observer in the case to testify. The fact that her testimony was 

generally consistent with the testimony of the working flight attendant witnesses 

additionally suggests that Complainant's witnesses were credible. 

Ms. Tahaira, in attempting to cast doubt on Complainant witnesses' credibility, 

makes much of the fact that the witnesses sometimes remembered certain aspects of the 

same events differently. Ms. Tahaira also showed that on occasion a witness failed to 

note an arguably significant event discussed by another percipient witness. Complainant 

witnesses also offered internally inconsistent testimony, she charged (See, e.g., Resp. Br., 

pp. 7-9). 

That a witness may have misstated facts or sequences, however, or offered 

inconsistent or incomplete testimony, fails to furnish a reason to discredit that witness' 

testimony as a whole. Such circumstances by themselves do not suggest that the witness 

was embellishing, misrepresenting, or lying. See Howard Gotbetter, FAA Order No. 

2000-17 (August 11, 2000), pp. 9-10. 

For example, testimony differed concerning whether Ms. Tahaira brought the 

flight attendants to Ms. Dutt or the flight attendants brought Ms. Tahaira to Ms. Dutt. 

There was testimony that Ms. Dutt initiated an offer to translate, but there also was 
13 

testimony that a flight attendant made the first approach. Laura Clampitt stated that Ms. 

Tahaira lay down in an exit row, but Ms. Stevens insisted that Ms. Tahaira never actually 

reclined, but always sat. Ms. Rojas' statement to the police referred to Ms. Dutt as Ms. 

Tahaira's friend, but at the hearing she said that Ms. Dutt had made it clear that the two 

passengers were unacquainted. 

I find that these differences are minor and non-persuasive. They also are not 

relevant to the core issues before the agency. These relatively trivial discrepancies do not 

call into question the overall reliability of the witnesses' testimony. A fast-moving and 

fluid series of confrontations in a metal tube hurtling through the skies is not the ideal 

situation for recalling sequences and details with exactitude or thoroughness. Indeed, had 

the witnesses' accounts been uniform, or even uncommonly consistent, it would have 

raised the question of whether their testimony had been coordinated or rehearsed. Minor 

inconsistencies in the evidence do not justify disturbing an ALJ's credibility 

determination. Peter Houtenbos, FAA Order No. 2002-24 (November 22, 2002), pp. 12-

13; Nicholas J. Werle, FAA Order No. 97-20 (May 23, 1997), p. 11. 

Another factor suggesting that the varying accounts of Complainant witnesses 

were sincere and trustworthy is that differences in their testimony did not necessarily 

bolster the agency's case. Ms. Rojas' testimony alleging that Ms. Tahaira grabbed Ms. 

Stevens' arm or wrist asserted also that Ms. Stevens at that moment cried "Ow!" - a 

striking underscoring of the force which resulted. According to both Ms. Rojas and Ms. 

Stevens, a bruise and attendant discoloration appeared on Ms. Steven's arm shortly 

thereafter (see Exhs. C-12, C-13; hiitial Decision ("I.D."), p. 10). But neither Ms. 

Stevens' statement given to the police nor her oral testimony asserted that she had said 

anything when Ms. Tahaira jerked her forward. That circumstance suggests 

trustworthiness. Had Ms. Stevens intended to embellish or otherwise fabricate her 

recollection to strengthen the case against Ms. Tahaira it is imlikely that she would have 

failed to describe such an evocative moment. The contrasting recollections of Ms. Rojas 

and Ms. Stevens show that percipient witnesses will recall the same events - even those 

with a certain drama — differently. That circumstance alone does not undermine the 

credibility of either witnesses' testimony. 

Tending also to support the credibility of Complainant witnesses Ms. Rojas and 

Ms. Stevens in particular are their assertions that Ms. Tahaira stated that she felt she had 

been singled out and maltreated on account of her Muslim religion (1 Tr. 203-04 

(Stevens); 2 Tr. 364 (Rojas); see also 1 Tr. 175-76 (Clampitt)). Allegations of 

discrimination would tend to impute improper and malicious motives to the flight 

attendants and, in so doing, undermine their substantive claims against Ms. Tahaira. 

Such a claim, if given credence, also could damage these witnesses both professionally 

and personally. That Ms. Stevens and Ms. Rojas would testify that Ms. Tahaira accused 

the flight attendants of discrimination on the basis of religion introduces an element 

which might have repercussions unfavorable to them. That they did so nonetheless tends 

to show that their testimony was straightforward and honest. It shows that their 

testimony as a whole was trustworthy. 
14 

Ms. Tahaira additionally supports her attacks on the credibility of witnesses 

Stevens and Rojas by pointing out inconsistencies between their statements to the police 

and their testimony at the hearing (see, e.g., 2 Tr. 346-47). Ms. Rojas, for example, told 

the police that the flight attendants "had to move [Ms. Tahaira] 5 times" to her original 

seat (Exh. C-15), but at the hearing, she claimed that Ms. Tahaira had been moved in total 

about 15 times. Ms. Stevens' assertion that Ms. Tahaira had flicked the safety ~* 

information card on the floor (I.D., p. 6) was absent from her statement. Additionally, 

while Ms. Stevens claimed in testimony that Ms. Tahaira "popped" her three times (1 Tr. 

200), her written statement says only that Ms. Tahaira "popped me on the face," possibly 

implying just one touching (see Exh. C-14). 

The witnesses' explanations for these differences were sensible and reasonable 

and do not harm their credibility. Ms. Rojas testified that her statement was not complete 

(2 Tr. 380). She stressed that she was very tired when she wrote it, and in that condition 

could not recall everything notable that had occurred on the flight (2 Tr. 367, 381, 382). 

The flight attendants were at the end of their shift on a redeye flight (2 Tr. 367). Ms. 

Stevens, while acknowledging that her statement could have been more thorough (2 Tr. 

343), also, like Ms. Rojas, emphasized that she was tired when she composed her 

statement (2 Tr. 342, 347). I credit these explanations. It simply asks too much to expect 

anyone, much less a very tired witness, to recall inmiediately afterwards substantially all 

significant matters occurring over several hours against a hectic and tense background. 

Ms. Rojas, in my view, aptly summed up the context of both statements: "I just put down 

the information that I quickly remembered" (2 Tr. 381). The discrepancies between the 

witnesses' statements and their testimony at the hearing under the circumstances furnish 

no cause to discredit their testimony as a whole. 

In order to make a finding discrediting Complainant witnesses, moreover, I would 

have to conclude that the witnesses together fabricated - and rehearsed — a complicated 

nartative, involving several discrete events. To make such a leap is manifestly 

unwarranted. Four percipient witnesses - one of whom is a flight attendant at another 

airline with just a passing acquaintance with one of the others ~ had no discernible 

reason to lie in concert, or individually. Leah Stevens' comment in this connection is apt: 

"I have no reason to lie. This is a burden for me to come here from where I live, across 

the country, to do this... This is not fun for me" (1 Tr. 241). 

In sum, I find that Complainant's witnesses were sincere and believable. They 

recoimted the various stages in a difficult and drawn-out situation as best as they could. 

Purported gaps and other deficiencies in their testimony were reasonable under the 

circumstances. They do not disturb my findings regarding credibility. 

Ms. Tahaira's dismissive conclusion that "[tjhey're all lying" (2 Tr. 493), on the 

other hand, runs contrary to the totality of the evidence, and is rejected. 

I generally have not credited Ms. Tahaira's testimony. I find that, on the whole, it 

was not truthful. She often failed to readily and directly answer questions; her responses 
15 

were sometimes evasive; and she avoided questions or volunteered unasked information. 

I find that she fabricated significant portions of her testimony. 

Much of Ms. Tahaira's testimony ranged from unlikely to outright fanciful. This 

is so even when it is evaluated in isolation, and not against the assertions of 

Complainant's witnesses. While Ms. Tahaira's claims that she did not "pop" Ms. "* 

Stevens, grab her, flip the safety information card on the floor, or fail to cooperate with 

the crew's requests, were not on their face unbelievable, other assertions were so farfetched that they independently call into question Respondent's explanation of all the 

events. 

Ms. Tahaira's claim that Ms. Dutt was neither asked to, nor did, translate for her 

Strains credulity. I find this assertion simply vexatious. It is highly dubious too that a 

flight attendant would (as Ms. Tahaira claims) state, even jokingly, thata deceased 

passenger would be tossed from a window (see 2 Tr. 464, 479; I.D., p. 11). I find further 

that Ms. Tahaira's denial that the flight attendants attempted to examine her 

qualifications to sit in an exit row (2 Tr. 464) is implausible. In asking me essentially to 

believe that the flight attendants (particularly Ms. Rojas, who was responsible for the row 

in which Ms. Tahaira sat) were derelict in performing a standard safety duty (see 1 Tr. 

152), this claim borders on the preposterous. Ms. Tahaira's additional assertion that a 

flight attendant had told her that the passengers lying across a bank of seats paid extra for 

those seats (2 Tr. 463) crosses the outer edge of reasonable belief. It is bizarre. In sum, 

Ms. Tahaira made several statements that were so outlandish that they substantially, and 

independently, undermined the credibility of her testimony as a whole. 

I find further that Ms. Tahaira's accusations against the flight crew - which 

include allegations of rudeness (1 Tr. 175; Resp. Br., p. 13) and "pushing" her into her 

seat (2 Tr. 490, 492) as well as discrimination ~ are an attempt to deflect criticism from 

her own behavior. I categorically reject them. They are groundless and reckless. I find 

that the crew conducted themselves in a professional and exemplary marmer under 

difficult circumstances. 

Ms. Tahaira's demeanor and testimony were more consistent with a witness intent 

on an agenda or a witness who is biased or imtrustworthy. On the whole, I find her 

testimony implausible and not credible. Respondent simply was unworthy of belief.^ 

^ Even Ms. Dutt's purported statement, to which I give very little weight because of foundational issues and 

the lack of opportunity for cross-examination (she did not appear at the hearing, despite a subpoena 

ordering her to do so) states that she was "asked to communicate with Ms. Tahaira .. ." Exh. R-1. See also 

Compl. Br., p. 16 n. 2. 

^ Ms. Stevens' unrebutted testimony that Ms. Tahaira asserted that she had paid for business-class seats on 

a flight which has no business class (I.D., p. 5) raises the question that Respondent also may have been 

confused, an additional factor coloring her recollection. We have seen that she was very tired from a series 

of long flights and layovers totaling at least 28 hours (I.D., p. 3). Her son Mat Chaudhry, who was also a 

witness, testified that the traveling his mother regularly undertakes is a "very grueling experience .. . very 

tiring" (2 Tr. 513). Such circumstances may impede a clear-headed recounting of events. 
16 

2. Section 121.585(c) 

This FAR requires compliance with crewmember instructions regarding exit 

seating restrictions (see I.D., p. 1). Complainant proved that Ms. Tahaira violated this 

regulation on at least five occasions. 

The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Tahaira did not speak English clearly enough 

to sit in an exit row (I.D., pp. 5-6). Flight attendants, in accordance with safety 

procedures, then directed her to sit in a non-exit row. Yet several times Ms. Tahaira 

ignored or defied these instructions. 

The evidence that Ms. Tahaira violated § 121.585(c) is ample. All four of 

Complainant's percipient witnesses testified to it. But the witnesses' statements 

concerning the number of times Ms. Tahaira returned to an exit row were very different. 

Because of this, Ms. Tahaira suggests that the credibility of these observations (and by 

extension the witnesses' testimony as a whole) is doubtful (Resp. Br., p. 8). Yet whether 

Ms. Tahaira sat in an exit row against instructions five times, fifteen times, or some other 

number of times, is not germane.^ The import of the witnesses' testimony is the 

significant consideration, and it was absolutely consistent and credible: Ms. Tahaira on 

multiple occasions returned to the exit row to sit or recline after being made aware that 

she was unqualified and could not be permitted to be there. Ms. Tahaira refused repeated 

offers of non-exit rows in which to stretch out, instead stubbornly returning to an exit row 

that she knew was off-limits. Even after the seat cushions in the particular exit row she 

had favored were turned inside out in order to discourage her from sitting or reclining 

there, she returned. When the cushions from that row were removed altogether, she still 

returned. The credible evidence is overwhelming that Ms. Tahaira failed and refused 

several times to abide by flight attendant instructions to refrain from sitting in an exit 

row. This evidence shows that Ms. Tahaira, multiple times - at least five ~ violated 

§121.585(c). 

In her answer to this charge, Ms. Tahaira asserted that she understands the 

meaning and significance of sitting in an exit row, and would have had no reason to do so 

(2 Tr. 480). If Ms. Tahaira truly understood the meaning and significance of sitting in an 

exit row, then her actions - testified to by four other witnesses - are all the more 

um-easonable. Ms. Tahaira answered that she "never" sat there (2 Tr. 480), a statement 

completely at odds with the credible evidence and testimony. In view of the trustworthy 

and extensive testimony to the contrary, this claim simply is incredible and is rejected. 

Ms. Tahaira also asserted in her defense that a language barrier prevented her 

from following the flight attendants' exit-row directions. When the flight attendants were 

talking to her in their efforts to determine whether she was qualified to sit in the exit row, 

Ms. Tahaira said she did not understand them (2 Tr. 464). Insofar as Ms. Tahaira's 

assertion is intended to mean that she never understood what the flight attendants were 

trying to convey to her, it is not believable. To be sure, there were instances in which 

' The agency concedes that "the precise number of times the Respondent returned to the exit row, after 

being instructed not to sit there, is unclear." Compl. Br., p. 4. 
17 

Ms. Tahaira appeared to fail to understand the flight attendants ~ including conversations 

concerning her fitness to sit in an exit row (see, e.g., 1 Tr. 193-94 (Stevens); 2 Tr. 356 

(Rojas)) — but the evidence showed that the flight attendants successfully conveyed to 

Ms. Tahaira that she was not qualified to place herself in an exit row and was forbidden 

to sit or recline there. Ms. Stevens and Ms. Rojas each credibly testified that, using 

various verbal and non-verbal methods singly or in combination, they made themselves * 

understood. By repeating themselves, saying the same thing in different ways, using 

pantomime, using visual aids such as the safety information card, and obtaining Ms. 

Dutt's translation, they got across their message. They knew it from Ms. Tahaira's 

reactions (See, e.g., 1 Tr. 199 (Stevens): "Mrs. Dutt told Ms. Tahaira, in another 

language, everything, Ms. Tahaira's nodding her head, understanding,. . "; 2 Tr. 356-57 

(Rojas): "Q. You know [Ms. Tahaira] understood that request [to leave the emergency 

exit row]? A. At that point; yes. Q. How could you tell? A. Because when we asked her 

again to move, she said no."). The flight attendants' testimony was persuasive. Ms. 

Clampitt, the American Airlines flight attendant traveling as a passenger, tlso observed: 

. . . after the flight attendants asked [^Ms. Tahaira] to leave 

the seat, the conversation and the kind a [|sic] argument as to 

why? why? why? ensued, and so this was going on in 

English, and then she did eventually go back to her seat. . . 

there was a conversation that was going on in English 

between Ms. Tahaira and the flight attendant, regarding the 

situation, so that is why 1 thought it was clearly understood. 

Tr. 156. 

The flight attendants' actions in repeatedly removing Ms. Tahaira from the exit 

row should have put her on notice, too. She should have drawn the logical - indeed 

obvious ~ conclusion from their repeated actions. I endorse the rationale of FAA 

Aviation Safety Inspector and witness James Hawks, who testified, "it'd be pretty clear to 

a reasonable person, if the flight attendants keep removing you from a seat, or a series of 

seats, then they don't want you to be sitting there" (1 Tr. 92-93). 

Additionally, as a veteran flyer - one who, by her own testimony, has been flying 

for twenty years (2 Tr. 458,478; I.D., p. 3) - Ms. Tahaira must be presumed to be aware 

of basic rules and precautions associated with air travel. More specifically, she must 

have been aware of the restrictions on exit-row seating. Ms. Tahaira acknowledged as 

much in her own testimony (2 Tr. 480). 

Ms. Tahaira, moreover, demonstrated by her actions that she understood the flight 

attendants' requests. Her charge that, during the flight, she had been unfairly blocked 

from sitting or reclining in an empty seat bank on account of her religion (1 Tr. 175-76; 

Exh. C-6 (I.D., p. 5) (testimony of Ms. Clampitt); 1 Tr. 205-06; Exh. C-14 (I.D., p. 7) 

(Ms. Stevens); and 2 Tr. 364 (I.D., p. 10) (Ms. Rojas)), must presuppose that Ms. Tahaira 

comprehended sufficiently the flight attendants' instructions prohibiting her from sitting 

there. Ms. Tahaira's contrasting testimony denying that she ever complained about unfair 

treatment on account of her religion - or that she even mentioned her heritage (2 Tr. 470-
71) - is, in the face of credible and substantial contrary testimony, rejected as simply 

unbelievable. 

I also reject Ms. Tahaira's argument suggesting that Complainant is trying to 

"have it both ways" - that is, claim on the one hand that Ms. Tahaira "perfectly 

understood" the crew's instruction not to sit in an emergency exit row, while at the same" 

time assert that Ms. Tahaira did not have the English-language capability to sit there 

(Resp. Br., p. 16). Ms. Tahaira's contention fails by implicitly denying the existence of a 

middle ground between these extremes. In that middle ground is where the evidence fell. 

The evidence showed that Ms. Tahaira indeed had limited facility in English - too limited 

for exit-row occupants — but nonetheless understood English well enough to comprehend 

the crew's instructions. 

Ms. Tahaira, I find, heard and understood the flight attendants' instructions to her. 

Her failure to hdfed them is wholly her responsibility, and the consequences of her actions 

rest entirely with her.' 

In this cormection, I note that I have considered all other arguments raised by Ms. 

Tahaira. Those not explicitly discussed in this Initial Decision are rejected as without 

merit." 

3. Section 46318 

As has been seen, 49 U.S.C. §46318 is violated when an individual assaults a 

member of a flight crew (I.D., pp. 1-2). Complainant proved that Ms. Tahaira assaulted 

Ms. Stevens in violation of this statute when she tapped, or "popped," Ms. Stevens in the 

face. Ms. Tahaira also conmiitted an assault when she grabbed and yanked the flight 

attendant's wrist or forearm. Two of the flight attendants (Stevens and Rojas) testified as 

to the first incident, and all three of the working flight attendants (Stevens, Rojas, and 

Kate-Sanchez) testified as to the second. 

The term "assault" is not defined in section 46318. It is well-settled, however, 

that when a statute uses a common-law term such as "assault" without defining it, the 

term must be taken to mean the same thing it means at conmion law. U.S. v. Turley, 352 

'" Moreover, Ms. Tahaira's assertion at the hearing that she failed to understand conversations concerning 

her exit-row qualifications itself raises doubts. The transcript records the following exchange between 

counsel for Ms. Tahaira and Ms. Tahaira: "Q. Could you understand what they were saying to you? A. 

(speaking for herself) No." 2 Tr. 464. This exchange shows that Respondeijt understood the question 

posed to her in English. 

' Respondent contends that JetBlue employees have been cited several times for "racist behavior" toward 

South Asians, setting out purported examples. Resp. Br., pp. 4-5. These assertions have no evidentiary 

basis. Moreover, they are irrelevant. What someone else may have said or done simply has no bearing on 

this case. Ms. Tahaira also states that the carrier's flight crews are not frained in "racial sensitivity and 

elimination of bias" - a problem which, she claims, "directly caused the incident in question." Resp. Br., p. 

5. This accusation is mere conjecture. Conjecture is not substantial evidence. Braden's Balloon's Aloft, 

Inc., FAA Order No. 2004-6 (September 22, 2004), p. 16, affd, 2005 WL 3541078 (10 Cir. 2005). The 

claim also is irrelevant. As I stated earlier, this proceeding concerns Ms. Tahaira's behavior - no one 

else's. I.D., p. 2. 
19 

U.S. 407, 411 (1957). The common-law definition of "assault" includes two distinct 

concepts. The first is an attempt to commit a battery. The second consists of "a threat to 

inflict injury upon the person of another which, when coupled with an apparent present 

ability, causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm." U.S. v. Dupree, 

544 F.2d 1050, 1051 (9 Cir. 1976). The Administrator also has stated that an assault is an 

unwanted touching. Howard Gotbetter, FAA Order No. 2000-17 (August 11, 2000), p. "* 

11. The agency also has defined "assault" as a "harmful or offensive intentional 

contact."' In the context of this case, "popping," or tapping, Ms. Stevens' face plainly 

constituted an assault. So did Ms. Tahaira's action in forcefully grabbing and jerking 

forward Ms. Stevens' wrist and forearm (see I.D., pp. 7-8). These actions were attempts 

to commit a battery; they also each constituted threats to injure Ms. Stevens which caused 

her reasonably to fear present bodily harm. And, of course, in both instances actual 

contact took place. 

Ms. Tahaira denies that she committed an assault. In support Ms. Tahaira asserts 

that she was not physically capable of such an act. She contends that she was too weak 

and frail to yank Ms. Stevens' forearm or wrist or to injure her. This argument is 

rejected. The record furnishes no support for it. There is no intimation that any of Ms. 

Tahaira's alleged ailments, singly or in combination, prevented her from summoning the 

strength and dexterity needed to commit these assaults (see Compl. Br., p. 18). I find that 

Ms. Tahaira could, and did, assault flight attendant Stevens on two occasions. 

Ms. Tahaira's actions described above were unwanted and offensive; her grab of 

Ms. Stevens' forearm or wrist, the evidence showed, was harmful as well. These actions 

were deliberate and intentional. That Ms. Tahaira may not have intended to cause harm 

is irrelevant to the violation; what matters is that she fully intended the assault. Ms. 

Tahaira's contrary assertion that she neither "popped" nor grabbed Ms. Stevens is 

rejected as unworthy of belief. Additionally, I credit Ms. Stevens' assertion - supported 

by fellow flight attendants Rojas and Kate-Sanchez — that this assault raised a bruise on 

her forearm which discolored it, and which remained for days. 

4. Section 121.580 

Complainant, quoting FAR §121.580, alleges that Ms. Tahaira "assaulted, 

threatened, intimidated or interfered with crewmembers in the performance of their duties 

aboard an aircraft being operated" (see I.D., p. 1). I find that Complainant proved that 

Ms. Tahaira interfered with the duties of the flight attendants in violation of this section. 

Ms. Stevens and Ms. Rojas, the flight attendants who primarily dealt with Ms. 

Tahaira, both credibly testified that Ms. Tahaira's actions caused a material and 

unnecessary interruption in their duties. Ms. Stevens stated that the flight attendants were 

'^ Technically, it is the tort of battery that is so defined. Evgeniy V. Ignatov, FAA Order No. 96-6 (February 

13, 1996), p. 8, quoting W. Page Keeton et al. Prosser & Keaton on the Law of Torts. §9, p. 39 (5* ed. 

1984); see also David H. Mayer, FAA Order 97-12 (February 20, 1997), p. 9. However, an "assault" for 

our purposes includes "battery." As the Administrator has stated, the terms frequently are used 

interchangeably and the distinction between them has been blurred. Ignatov, p. 9 n. 8. 
20 

forced to delay needed attention to certain passengers, as well as the flight's beverage and 

snack service, because "we were focusing all of our attention on Ms. Tahaira .. . we were 

dealing with her [Ms. Tahaira] always.. . constantly moving her out of the exit row" (1 

Tr. 196; 2 Tr. 365; I.D., pp. 8-9). 

Ms. Stevens summarized that Ms. Tahaira's conduct was a "huge distraction" (1 * 

Tr. 222). ". .. we were constantly moving Ms. Tahaira from the exit row to her original 

seat, and it was very, very disruptive, very distracting" (1 Tr. 223; I.D., p. 9). 

These circumstances make out a violation of 14 C.F.R. §121.580 13 

In this connection it is important to note that flight attendants are not servants. 

They are not on board primarily to promote passenger comfort. Their principal duty is to 

ensure the passengers' safety and security. 

Flight attendants perform vital safety functions aboard operating aircraft. They 

must be prepared to respond to in-flight emergencies as well as guarantee that passengers 

and luggage are prepared properly for critical phases of flight such as landing. Flight 

attendants must always be fully ready to deal with matters which pose a risk to the safety 

and security of flight, such as turbulence, rapid cabin decompression, or worse (see, e.g.. 

Southwest Airlines Co., 1997 WL 33631929 (Initial Decision of Administrative Law 

Judge Burton S. Kolko), January 23, 1997, p. 5). 

Such concerns are not theoretical. The FAA reported an average of 18 "serious" 

injuries per year over the five-year period 1996-2000 on account of turbulence (Aviation 

Safety: Fiscal Year 2008 Business Plan, p. 9, found at www.faa.80v). The story of the 

US Airways flight of January 15, 2009 which ditched in the Hudson River shortly after 

tciking off from New York City's LaGuardia Airport is well-known; what perhaps is not 

as well-appreciated as the captain's heroics is the role of the flight attendants. The 

passengers were saved not only through the skill and poise of the cockpit, but also on 

account of the cool professionalism under exceptionally trying circumstances of the cabin 

crew. Flight attendants are essential to safe flight. If a flight attendant has to spend an 

inordinate amount of time with a contrary and uncooperative passenger, he or she would 

be unacceptably compromised in managing such critically important duties. See Shelley 

Louise Conger, FAA Order No. 2007-8 (August 2, 2007), p. 12 n. 15; Peter Houtenbos, 

FAA Order No. 2002-24 (November 22, 2002), p. 11. 

'^ Since section 121.580 is written using the disjunctive "or," Respondent may be charged with assault 

under it even in the absence of interference. Evgeniy v. Ignatov, FAA Order No. 96-6, 1996 WL 210098 

(February 13, 1996), p. 4. However, 49 U.S.C. §46318, the subject of the third charge against Respondent, 

addresses itself only to assault or threat of assault on a flight crew member (see I.D., pp. 1-2), so the 

question of assault was considered under that statute. See section II.C.3. above, pp. 19-20. 
21 

III. Penalty 

I will assess a total civil penalty against Ms. Tahaira of $6,000. The penalty 

consists of: 1) $1,000 for one violation of 14 C.F.R. §121.580; 2) $1,000 for a minimum 

of five violations of 14 C.F.R. §121.585(c); and 3) $4,000 for two violations of 49 U.S.C. 

§46318. 

A penalty assessment must weigh a respondent's behavior and evaluate its effect. 

It must reflect the totality of the circumstances surrounding the violations. Folsom's Air 

Service, Inc., 2008 WL 4948488 (November 6, 2008), FAA Order No. 2008-11, p. 4. In 

this light, I find that an assessment of $6,000 is fully warranted. Ms. Tahaira's actions 

not only were demonstrably in violation of the FARs cited and 49 U.S.C. §46318, a 

Federal statute, but Ms. Tahaira also was belligerent and defiant into the bargain. 

Ms. Tahaira refused to heed flight attendant instructions regarding exit-row 

seating multiple times. Ms. Tahaira committed an assault on a flight attendant at least 

twice. Her unlawful behavior consumed great amounts of flight-attendant time because it 

occurred so many times, and over an extended period. Ms. Tahaira's behavior required 

two flight attendants to give her disproportionate amounts of their time, thereby diverting 

them from their safety and service responsibilities. Ms. Tahaira's conduct created an 

imdue risk of danger had an unsafe situation developed. 

Additionally, Ms. Tahaira elevated the level of tension in an already difficult 

situation (and disturbed slumbering passengers) by her groimdless and outrageous fullthroated accusations against the crew of religious discrimination. 

The character of Ms. Tahaira's behavior significantly threatened the flight 

attendants' authority, and, by doing so, undermined the integrity of a process primarily 

designed to ensure safe and secure travel for passengers and crew. Michael Bengry, FAA 

Order No. 2003-9 (September 12, 2003), pp. 9, 10. A flight attendant who is required to 

juggle critical safety as well as service responsibilities in a metal tube hurtling through 

the air at 30,000 feet must be free from passenger misconduct. Against this background, 

Ms. Tahaira's behavior merits a significant sanction. Indeed, the FAA had substantial 

cause to suggest a higher penalty, which I might well have assessed had it been pled.*'* 

Ms. Tahaira asserted that she is unable to afford a penalty. Because of that, none 

should be assessed even if violations are foimd, Ms. Tahaira argues (Resp. Br., p. 2). The 

'^ Since the maximum civil penalty for a §46318 violation is $25,000, a greater penalty on that count could 

have been sought. However, a civil penalty greater than that sought by the agency may not be assessed. 

§13.160). 

The evidence suggested charges in addition to diose preferred. Ms. Stevens testified that Ms. Tahaira left 

her seat "many times" when the seat-belt sign was lit after the flight attendant had reminded her not to do 

so. I.D., p. 8. Such conduct violates FAR §121.317(0 and (k). Ms. Tahaira also pushed past flight 

attendants Rojas and Stevens (see I.D., pp. 6, 7) - conduct which prompted Ms. Stevens' telephone call to 

the captain - and tossed a safety information card in the direction of the flight attendants (I.D., p. 6 

(Stevens)), actions which were not charged in the Complaint but arguably constituted at least two 

additional assaults. 
22 

defense of inability to pay is considered an affirmative defense. A party raising an 

affirmative defense must prove it. See, e.g., Dawn M. Lewis, FAA Order No. 91-3 

(February 4, 1991), p. 8; I. D., p. 2. Ms. Tahaira's proof failed. 

In support of her defense, Ms. Tahaira introduced an unsworn, unauthenticated 

document purporting to show that she receives public assistance. Ms. Tahaira and her * 

son, Mat Chaudhry (who was not a passenger on this flight), testified that Ms. Tahaira 

receives $339 per month in general assistance welfare benefits, and has no other income 

(2 Tr. 445-46, 508; Exh. R-3). It is recognized that welfare benefits will not be extended 

unless need under local standards is demonstrated (see Resp. Br., p. 27). Other evidence, 

however, suggested that funds are available to Ms. Tahaira sufficient to afford a civil 

penalty in the amount assessed. Ms. Tahaira and her son each testified that Ms. Tahaira 

flies to and from Pakistan every year. Ms. Tahaira has been "traveling" - presumably by 

air ~ for twenty yeai's.'^ According to Mr. Chaudhry, his mother was supposed to fly to 

Pakistan yet again this past February, just three months after the travels involved in this 

proceeding (2 Tr. 506). We take notice that such frequent and lengthy travels are not 

inexpensive. They require funds. In light of the fact that it is Ms. Tahaira's burden to 

demonstrate inability to pay, it was incumbent upon her to explain why this apparent 

source of substantial and continuing income should not fatally impair her defense of 

inability to pay a fine. Ms. Tahaira did not do so. Records that a reasonable person 

would accept as reliable and probative on the issues of income and expenses, such as 

financial statements, tax returns, and the like, might have helped to demonstrate inability 

to pay. Ms. Tahaira also failed to produce any records showing how she affords both 

day-to-day expenses, such as food and housing costs, and relatively large but recurring 

expenses, such as the costs of international air travel. In these circumstances, I find that 

Ms. Tahaira failed to prove that she is unable to afford the civil penalty assessed. Her 

defense of inability to pay fails. See Conquest Airlines, FAA Order No. 1994-20 (June 

22, 1994), pp. 3-4. 

The discussion of penalty also must account for Ms. Tahaira's emotional and 

physical state. The evidence showed that Ms. Tahaira had been traveling for at least 28 

hours when she boarded flight 83. She is elderly - her son testified that she may in fact 

be five years older than her "official" age at the time of the flight of 69 (2 Tr. 512) - and 

she alleged that she continues to suffer from various health problems (2 Tr. 451-53, 504-

05, 507-08; see I.D., p. 3). She entered and exited the aircraft, and the courtroom, in a 

wheelchair. On the flight she testified that had been tired and worn out from her 

particularly grueling travels (see 2 Tr. 513). She alleged that she had felt ill. She had 

hoped to lie down and rest. 

Yet with due regard for Ms. Tahaira's personal circumstances, they may not 

mitigate, much less excuse, her conduct toward the flight attendants. The Administrator 

has underscored that "[u]nder no circumstances is it appropriate for a passenger to 

'' I.D., p. 3. Ms. Tahaira also testified that she has lived in the United States for the past ten years. 2 Tr. 

443. If both statements are correct, then Respondent's travels between approximately 1989 and 1999 

apparently were between Pakistan and a point or points outside the United States. The record does not 

indicate what these points might have been. 
23 

assault a flight attendant by grabbing and yanking" that flight attendant's person. Shelley 

Louise Conger, FAA Order No. 2007-8 (August 2, 2007), p. 21 (emphasis supplied). 

Moreover, we live today in a particularly safety- and security-attuned 

environment. Ms. Tahaira, as a veteran traveler, surely must be aware of that fact. '^ In* 

such an atmosphere it is imperative that airline passengers refrain from interfering with 

the crew's responsibilities - much less defying them repeatedly and assaulting any of 

their number - regardless of their personal situation. Respect for the crew's authority is 

essential. Nothing less can be tolerated. Hillard Abroms, 2008 WL 345387, FAA Order 

No. 2008-2 (January 28, 2008), p. 6; see also Shelley Louise Conger, FAA Order No. 

2007-8 (August 2,2007), pp. 21-22. 

Against this background, I find that a civil penalty of $6,000 is appropriate. It is 

warranted by the totality of the circumstances. It will promote respect for proper conduct 

aboard aircraft and for the safety and security responsibilities associated with air 

transport. The penalty will act as a deterrent to Ms. Tahaira and to other passengers. It 

will fiilfill the statutory purpose. 

On the basis of the foregoing, I hereby assess against Respondent, Talat Tahaira, a 

civil penalty of $1,000 for one violation of 14 C.F.R. §121.580; a civil penalty of $1,000 

for five violations of 14 C.F.R. §121.585(c); and a civil penalty of $4,000 for two 

violations of 49 U.S.C. §46318, for atotal civil penalty of $6,000.''' 

SO ORDERED. 

[Kichard C. tfoodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

'* Compare the Administrator's admonishment to a respondent that he "should have realized the importance 

of compliance because he was an experienced flier." Hillard Abroms, 2008 WL 345387, FAA Order No. 

2008-2 (January 28, 2008), p. 7. 

'^ This decision may be appealed to the Administrator of the FAA. The notice of appeal must conform to 

sections 13.210, 13.211(e) and 13.233 of the Rules of Practice, which require that a notice of appeal 1) be 

filed not later than 10 days (plus an additional five days if mailed) from the service date of this decision, 

and 2) be perfected with a written brief or memorandum not later than 50 days (plus an additional five, if 

mailed) from the service date of this decision. The notice of appeal and brief or memorandum must either 

be a) mailed to the Federal Aviation Adminisfration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 

20591, Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, or b) delivered 

personally or via expedited courier service to the Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, D.C. 20591, Attn: Hearing Docket 

Clerk, AGC-430. A copy of the notice of appeal and brief or memorandum also must be sent to agency 

counsel. Service upon the presiding judge is optional. 
FAA Docket No. CP09NM0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Lawrence A. Hildes, Attorney 

Law Offices of Lawrence A. Hildes 

P.O. Box 5405 

Bellingham, WA 98227 

TEL: 360-715-9788 

FAX: 360-714-1791 

Karen Davis Huber, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057-3356 

TEL: 425-227-2167 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Groimd Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.