,~ .... -- -

SERVED JULY 22, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 


IN THE MATTER OF 


MARIA TAVERAS, 


Respondent. 


FAA DOCKET NO. CPI0SW0005 


DMS NO. FAA-2010-0316 


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S INITIAL DECISION 

I. 

American Airlines' Flight 423 on December 11,2007 from New York 

City to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, with an intermediate stop in 

Miami, Florida, was not a happy venture. The flight had been delayed in 

departing New York, 1 and another lengthy delay took place while the 

aircraft sat under the broiling South Florida sun. The passengers were 

grumbling. Many asked the cabin crew for water. The crew decided to 

provide a "water service" for passengers in coach class ofthe A300 aircraft. 

(The first class passengers had been served drinks from the time they 

boarded.) Julia Sasson, a Flight Attendantwho had been assigned t() work in 

the first class cabin, decided to go to the rear galley to help with the water 

service. As she did so, she passed by the left aisle seat where the Maria 

Taveras, the Respondent in this case, was sitting. Ms. Taveras asked Sa~~oIJ_ 

to bring her a glass ofwater, as she had decided to take one ofherbloodpressure medication pills. 

After Ms. Sasson reached the rear galley, the Captain called the 

members ofthe cabin crew and informed them that their aircraft had been 

I There is some question about the New York airport at which the flight originated. The Complainant's 

papers said the flight left from LaGuardia Airport, while the Respondent testified that she boarded it at 

Kennedy Airport. This discrepancy makes no difference in the outcome ofthe case, however, because the 

important events took place on the Miami-Santo Domingo leg ofthe flight. 
. cleared for take off. He told them to tenninate the water service and go to 

their assigned stations in preparation for take off. Ms. Sasson proceeded 

back up the aisle toward the first class section of the aircraft, passing by the 

Respondent but not providing her with the water for which she had asked. 

The Respondent left her seat and followed Sasson up the aisle.2 She caught" 

up with her at the first class galley. At that point, Ms. Taveras began a 

lengthy and vigorous tongue-lashing, telling Ms. Sasson that she (Ms. 

Taveras) knew important people at American Airlines, that she could have 

this Flight Attendant fired, that she was (or knew) a lawyer and that she 

spoke four languages. 

Ms. Sasson's co-worker, Jason Henderson, the purser'ttboardthe 

aircraft, was also in the galley area. He attempted to get the Respondent to 

calm down and explained that the water service had been tenninated at the 

Captain's direction. But Ms. Taveras was not having any of this 

explanation. At this point, accounts differ: Mr. Henderson testified that he 

gave the Respondent a glass ofwater but told her to drink it in the galley, as 

the aircraft was about to take off. The Respondent testified that she went 

into the bathroom to get the water she needed to take her medication. 

Having taken it, she returned to her seat, and the rest of the flight to the 

Dominican Republic passed uneventfully. There were approximately 285 

passengers and eight crewmembers aboard. 

When the aircraft landed, passengers were allowed to exit through the 

forward-most door on the left side ofthe plane. The A300 has two exit 

doors on each side. The forward-most door on the left side is called the L-I 

door. There is also another door, the L-2 door,located about six feet aft of 

the L-I door. On this occasion, the L-I door, which fills the largest ofthe 

two exits on the left side, was closed. Flight Attendant Sasson was stationed 

at the L-2 door, and Purser Henderson was stationed at the L-I door. Their 

duties were to remain alert for events and paSsenger behavior that might 

resulfin damage to the aircraft, theft of its fittings or injury to passengers. In 

. addition, they were bidding farewell to the passengers. 

The Respondent, who had been seated midway on the left aisle ofthis 

two-aisled aircraft, was among the passengers who were passing up the left 

aisle towards the exit. As she did so, she saw Ms. Sasson and again seemed 

2 Witnesses differed on whether the Respondent was running or walking after Ms. Sasson. It is 


unnecessary to decide which it was. 


2 

agitated. Ms. Taveras decided to renew her verbal attack upon the flight 


attendant. As she passed Ms. Sasson's station, she remarked that if Ms. 


Sasson did not wish to wait upon passengers, she had chosen the wrong 


occupation. It is not clear whether Ms. Sasson replied to this comment. It is' 


clear, however, that other passengers who were in line to debark had to waH" 


until the Respondent completed her comments. After she had passed Ms . 


. Sasson, the Respondent spun around back towards her and wrapped her right 


arm around the flight attendant's neck, holding her he'ad in a headlock and 


twisting it towards the floor ofthe aircraft. With her left hand, Ms. Taveras 


reached out and ran her fingernails down Ms. Sasson's face, clawing four 


red marks from her hairline down towards her chin. Ms. Sasson fell to the 


floor, the cuts on her face bleeding. The Respondent flounced offthrough 


the open L-l door and up the jetway to the terminal. 


"Stop that woman! She attacked me!" yelled Ms. Sasson as other 

members of the cabin crew came to her assistance. Julieta Keegan, one of 

the flight attendants,Jollowed the Respondent into the terminal. Other flight 

attendants helped Ms. Sasson to her feet and brought her some ice fot her 

neck - she complained of soreness in her neck.' Aftertwo of her co-workers 

took photos ofher bleeding face with their cell-phone cameras, Ms. Sasson 

. was taken to a medical facility in the terminal for treatment. Meanwhile, 

security personnel, who had been alerted by members ofthe cabin crew that 

had followed Respondent into the terminal, apprehended Ms. Taveras at the 

customs and immigration station. 

At that point, the Respondent claimed that Flight Attendant Sasson 

had pushed her. Both parties gave statements of complaint to the terminal 

police and were placed in separate rooms in a holding area. Ms. Sasson was 

accompanied by Flight Attendant Keegan, the only Spanish-speaking' ~_ 

member ofthe crew/ and by Purser Henderson, who was tesponsible-roithe 

saf~ty and security ofthe cabin crew. In addition, a Dominican lawyer who 

claimed to represent the Respondent showed up and attempted to convince 

Ms. Sasson not to press charges. She refused. How he managed to obtain 

access to a supposedly "sterile" are ofthe terminal mystified the American 

Airlines employees and colored their view ofthe proceedings·from then on. 

3 Ms. Keegan was at that time unmarried and using her maiden name, Julieta Azpurua. She was born in 

Venezuela and accompanied Ms. Sasson to serve as interpreter for her. 

3 

At about 3:00 a.m., Ms. Sasson and her companions were told that she 

could leave, and that the charges would be placed before a Magistrate the 

following morning. They then departed for their hotel. On the following 

morning, they arrived at the courthouse. The Respondent was also there. 

Both women told their stories to the judge.4 After listening to them, the ''It 

judge told Ms. Sasson that she would have to go to a Dominican 

Government medical facility for a report on her wounds. The flight 

attendant and her party left the courthouse and proceeded to the hospital, 

where they secured the report which the judge had requested. They returned 

to the courthouse about 11 :00 a.m. They were then told that the judge was at 

lunch and would not return until about 3:00 p.m. that afternoon. That left 

them with a choice: they were scheduled to work on a flight that was due to 

depart Santo Domingo about 2:00 p.m. That meant that they had to be ready 

to work one hour prior to takeoff - about 1 :00 p.m. To pursue the effort to 

prosecute Respondent in the Dominican Republic would have required them 

to miss work, and they were unwilling to do so. So they returned to the 

hotel, then went to the airport and boarded the flight back to the United 

States. Apparently, nothing came ofthe charges lodged against the 

. Respondent or Ms. Sasson. 

II. 

On April 7,2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) filed a 

complaint, charging Maria Taveras with violations of49 U.S.C. § 46318 and 

14 C.F.R. § 121.580 for her conduct aboard Flight 423 and seeking to 

recover a civil penalty of$12,000. The matter was sent to the Department's 

Office ofhearings and was assigned to me by a notice issued by the Chief 

Judge on May 14,2010. A hearing was held New York, N.Y. on July 15, 

. ~~ 2010. At the hearing, the testimony ofMs. Sasson and three other members 

~he-6ahin crew was submitted. In addition, there was testimony on behalf 

ofthe·ComplaInantbYDrew Blahnik, an American Airlines pilot who was 

traveling in the coach cabin as a passenger "deadheading" to work aboard a 

flight departing from Santo Domingo. The F AAalso sponsored the 

testimony ofAviation Safety Inspector Patricia Mattone,who was qualified 

as an expert witness on the subject of cabin safety and testified about the 

interference with the duties ofthe cabin crew arising out of the incidents on 

December 11,2007 and on the subject ofthe appropriate penalty to be 

4 Ms. Keegan translated for the flight attendant. Ms. Taveras, who was a Dominican national spoke 

Spanish fluently. 

4 

------------~.----.-~.-.----- --- -

assessed against the Respondent. The Respondent, who was represented by 

counsel, testified on her own behalf and was the only witness who did so. 

F or her part, the Respondent acknowledged having pursued Ms. 

Sasson to the first-class galley and excoriating her for not giving her a glass'" 

ofwater when she first asked for it. The Respondent also agreed that, on 

passing Ms. Sasson while deplaning, she had asked, "If you don't like to . 

take care of people, why do you have this job" or words to that effect. Ms. 

Taveras testified that, in response to the latter comment, Ms. Sasson had 

pushed her, causing her to cry out, "Don't push mel" She also testified that 

she (Taveras) had pushed Ms. Sasson in the face but did so in order to 

defend herself. Ms. Taveras denied having called the flight attendant 

"stupid" or saying that she spoke four languages and was a lawyer. 

The testimony ofthe other witnesses contradicted the Respondent's 

version in virtually every important particular. Ms. Sasson testified that the 

attack on her was unprovoked by anything she had said or done, and she 

specifically denied that she had pushed Ms. Taveras or had done anything of 

that nature. Another witness was Jason Henderson, the purser, who had 

been stationed at the L-l door only a short distance away from where Flight 

Attendant Sasson was attacked. Mr. Henderson testified that Ms. Sasson 

had not said anything to the Respondent, nor had she made contact with her 

before the Respondent's assault. Ms. Keegan testified about the aborted 

water service; she said that she had explained to Ms. Taveras why they could 

not provide water at that time. Ms. Keegan was clear on the point that 

Taveras had threatened both her and Henderson with loss oftheir jobs. She 

did not, however, witness the attack on Ms. Sasson; however, she also 

testified that she had helped Ms. Sasson up from the floor ofthe aircraft and 

that Ms. Sasson was bleeding from several lacerations on her face and was 

complaining that her neck hurt. 

Anton Veenhof, another flight attendant, witnessed-th-'-e-c'onversatlOn 

between Ms: Taveras and Mr. Henderson and the other flight attendants in 

the first-class galley. He testified thatthe flight attendants attempted to 

explain to the Respondent the reasons why they could not complete the 

water service. The Respondent, however, would not listen to them, Mr. 

Veenhof testified. Veenhof also testified that he had seen the assault, and 

that after the Respondent had Ms. Sasson on the floor, she continued to slap 

at her. According to Mr. Veenhof, he witnessed this from a distance of 

about five feet away from the incident. 

5 

Drew Blahnik, the deadheading American Airlines pilot, testified that 

he noted that Ms. Taveras seemed very agitated as she approached Ms. 

Sasson at the L-2 door. For that reason, he left his seat near the rear ofthe 

aircraft and attempted to head her off. By the time she reached the location 

where Ms. Sasson was standing, there were only a few passengers between -" 

him and the two women. Blahnik testified he heard someone say, "Don't 

touch me" but did not recall whether this occurred before or after Ms. 

Sasson was clawed. He did say that he saw the incident quite clearly from a 

distance of eight-to-twelve feet and was certain that Ms. Sasson was not the 

aggressor. In his eleven-year career as a first officer with American Airlines, 

Capt. Blahnik said,this was the first case ofpassenger misconduct he had 

seen. He described the cabin crewmembers as being "stunned" bythe 

incident. 

The final FAA witness was Patricia Mattone who, as noted above, 

testified as an expert witness on flight attendant duties and cabin safety. She 

described, essentially without contradiction, that the members of the cabin 

crew, including Flight Attendant Sasson, had important duties to perform 

even though the aircraft was parked and passengers were deplaning. They 

must, she said, be alert to deal with possible emergencies at that time that 

might require quick evacuation ofthe aircraft. Ifthat exigency were to arise, 

the performance ofthe Flight Attendant stationed at the L-2 door, as Ms. 

Sasson was, would be critical. According to Ms. Mattone, the actions of the 

Respondent interfered with performance ofthe duties of many members of 

the crew, who were called upon the assist Ms. Sasson rather than stand their 

regular watches. Further, of course, Ms. Sasson could not be available to 

perform her duties when, thanks to the Respondent, she was on the floor of 

the aircraft. 

Ms. Mattone also testified about the appropriate penalty to be assessed 

inljght ofthe FAA's policies as set forth in Order No. 2150.3B. She noted 

t at . e ctI 1 arlee table annexed to that order calls for a penalty of 

$1,100-$8,000 for each violation. In light ofthe factors to be considered in 

accordance with Chapter 7 of Order No. 2150.3, it was Ms. Mattone's 

opinion that a civil penalty of $12,000 would be an appropriate sanction. 

6 

III. 

There can hardly be a viable dispute about the critical facts in this 

case. The Respondent launched and perpetrated a vicious, injurious and· 

nasty assault on a flight attendant who was engaged in the performance of '" 

her duties, thereby causing pain and injury to Ms. Sasson. The attack was 

inexcusable, even ifthe Respondent's story that she was pushed is believed. 

Passengers are commonly pushed when exiting crowded aircraft - that does 

not make flight attendants "fair game" for physical retaliation ofthe sort that 

took place here. But I do not believe that Ms. Sasson, or anyone else, 

pushed the Respondent. Having listened to her tell this tale, (and to her 

. attorney reiterate it), I conclude that she made it up in order to d€f1ect 

trouble from herself. Several percipient and credible witnesses saw the 

confrontation, and all agreed that nothing Ms. Sasson did or said justified the 

Respondent's behavior. 

It is worth noting, in this regard, that none ofthe individuals who 

testified as witnesses to the encounter were neophytes. At the time ofthis 

incident, Ms. Sasson had had some 18 years of experience as an American 

Airlines flight attendant. Mr. Henderson, the purser, had been an American 

Airlines cabin crewmember for more than 12 years; Ms. Keegan (nee 

Azpurua) for about 17 years, Mr. Veenhoffor nearly 18 years and Capt. 

Blahnik (who did not know, and had never flown with, the members ofthe 

cabin crew) had been employed by American Airlines for approximately 

. eight years, following a career as a transport pilot with the U.S. Air Force~ It 

is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that experienced employees, 

accustomed to dealing for many years with passengers from all walks oflife, 

would suddenly decide to enter into a conspiracy to defame and assault Ms. 

Taveras, especially when they were about to be relieved ofthe burden ofher 

presence. On the witness stand, Ms. Taveras could not withstand the rather 

mild cross-examination to which she was subjected. Ratherthan answer the_.__ 

questions ofFAA counsel directly, she lapsed into filibustering about he;:­

emotional state .. She also pretended to be unable to understand simple 

questions in the English language, even though her English had been rather 

eloquent when she was haranguing Ms. Sasson and other members ofthe . 

crew about their stupidity and lack ofimmediate attention to her wants. 

In short,' I find that the Respondent made an unprovoked and vicious 


assault on Ms. Sasson, an American Airlines flight attendant on flight 423, 


while the latter was engaged in the performance ofher duties. 


7 

By doing so, the Respondent subjected herself to liability for a civil 

penalty. 

Section 121.580 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) states that 

"[n]o person may assault, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the'" 

. performance ofthe Crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft" being operated 

by a for-hire carrier subject to the F AA~s jurisdiction. Section 46301 oftitle 

49, United States Code, provides that any individual who violates a . 

provision ofthe FAR is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $1,100for 

each violation. In addition, 49 U.S.C. § 46318 says that an individual who 

physically assaults a member ofthe flight crew or cabin crew of a civil 

aircraft is liable to the U.S. Government for a civil penalty of not,more than 

$2S,000. 

In Folsom's Air Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 

2008) the Administrator ruled that decisions on the amount of the civil 

penalty that should be assessed must start with consideration ofthe policies 

set forth in FAA Order No. 21S0. See also, American Air Network, Inc., 

FAA Order No. 2006-S , FAA LEXIS 181 (2006). In this case, the relevant 

version ofOrder No. 21S0 is Order No. 21S0.3B, dated July 26, 2007. 

As we have noted, Complainant's witness Mattone attempted to guide 

us through the rather thorny thicket that is Order No. 21S0.3B. In this 

regard, she largely failed. Order No. 21S0.3.is adifficult regulation to 

illuminate in general. In this case, one begins with the table found in the 

appendix to Chapter 7, entitled 'Sanction Guidance Policies." Figure B-3-p 

ofthat table deals with "Unruly passengers." The first entry specifies the 

penalty for "(1) Interference with crewmember" in violation of §§ 91.11, 

121.S80, 12S.328 or 13S.120 ofthe FAR. That entry clearly applies to the 

situation in the present case. However, the amount ofthe appropriate civil 

-____________ penalty set out in Figure B-3-p for such an offense is "Maximum," a term 

-wnIchlSnofVetyhelpful;lo ·one attempting the learn what maximum penalty 

is authorized. The next entry in the figure reads "Physical assault of flight or 

cabin crewmember under 49 U.S.C. § 46318" for which the authorized 

penalty is $1,100-$8,000. Ms. Mattone was asked whether this meant that a 

person who violates the statutory prohibition against assaulting a 

crewmember was liable for a civil penalty of only $8,000, while someone 

Who violates the FAR's prohibition ofthe same conduct was liable for a 

8 

-----~--

"maximum" penalty (which,.in the case of an individual would amount to 


only $1,100).5 She answered that she did not know. 


It is not necessary to untangle this conundrum in this case, however, 

. because both the $8,000 and the $1,100 figures are clearly insufficient in my 

judgment to provide an adequate and proper sanction for the outrageous 

conduct ofthe Respondent while deplaning in Santo Domingo. Physical 

attacks on flight attendants and other members ofthe crew must be severely 

punished. See Shelley Louise Conger, FAA Order No. 2007-8 (August 2, 

2007) Not only do they present a hazard to the safety of flight, but also, if 

unpunished, they tend to result in the dearth ofqualified and able people 

choosing to take these demanding jobs. Since, as Ms. Mattone so vividly 

testified, members ofthe cabin crew are important contributors to aviation 

safety, the traveling public would suffer ifwe permit behavior such as that 

displayed by the Respondent to take place without the imposition of severe 

sanctions. So I have determined to depart from strict compliance with the 

guidance in Order N9. 2150.3B.6 

The Complainant has asked for imposition of a $12,000 civil penalty 

in this case. The FAA's position (though it never said so explicitly atthe 

hearing) appears to be that we have here an instance oftwo separate 

violations ofthe prohibitions on interference with the crewmembers of an 

aircraft in the performance oftheir duties. I reject that hypothesis. The 

incident in the first class galley before the Airbu~ took off from Miami does 

not rise to the level of a violation of either the statute or the regulation. As 

Ms. Sasson cheerfully acknowledged during her testimony, ifthe 

confrontation in the first class galley had been her last interaction with the 

Respondent, no charges would have been brought against her. The 

Respondent's verbal attack on the intelligence and capability ofMs. Sasson 

and Mr. Henderson hardly qualified her for a Miss Congeniality award. It 

did not, however, amount to a violation of either the FAR's or the statute's 

prohibition on assault, intimidation or interference with a crewmember in the 

performance ofhis or her duties. "Mere words" cannot, in my judgment, 

constitute such a violation unless they include an imminent and credible 

5 See 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(I). The penalty would also be subject to the inflation adjustment prescribed by 


the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,28 U.S.C. § 2461 note and the FAA rules 


implementing that statute, 14 C.F.R. §13.305. 


6 It is well-settled that Order No. 2150.3 is not binding on administrative law judges, who must exercise 


their independent judgment to arrive at the amount ofan appropriate civil penalty. See Northwest Airlines, 


Inc., Order No. 1990-37 (November 7, 1990 at 8; Eric Salcido, 2008 DOT Av. LEXIS 16 at n.1 (August 1, 


2008) (initial decision); Lambton Doors, FAA Docket No. CPOOSOOO13 at 9 n.44 (May 7, 2004) (initial 


decision). 


9 

threat ofphysical hann amounting to a common-law assault. See David H. 

Mayer, FAA Order No. 97-12 (February 20, 1997) at 9. Cabin 

crewmembers are trained to defuse and deflect angry passengers, some of 

. whom undoubtedly threaten to correspond with the airline's management 

about their treatment. That is what happened here: Ms. Taveras got her 

water and that was the end ofthe matter as far as the crewmembers were 

concerned. To suggest that they were intimidated by her is fanciful. 

The Respondent's liability, therefore, arises solely from her brutal 

attack on Flight Attendant Sasson after the aircraft landed in Santo 

Domingo. As noted above, that attack was outrageous and malicious as to 

warrant a very severe sanction. Ifthe FAA had sought acivilp0nalty in the 

range of$15,000-$20,000 I would have granted that application. As it is, I 

am limited by law to assess no more than the amount sought by the 

complaint in this case, and I do so. 

The Respondent's counsel in his closing argument contended that 

there were mitigating circumstances that would warrant an assessment of 

less than that amount. He suggested that the Respondent's actions were not 

as detrimental to safety as, say, a physical attack on the flight deck crew and 

that she did not commit the assault on Ms. Sasson intentionally .. The claim 

that an assault on a member of the cabin crew has a different, and more 

excusable, character than an attack on the pilot or first officer is a dubious 

assertion at best, especially when the attack takes place after the aircraft is 

parked at its arrival gate. For reasons spelled out in detail above, I do not 

credit Respondent's claim that her unpardonable assault on Ms. Sasson was 

an unpremeditated effort to defend herself from the latter's aggression. In 

short, I find and detennine that there is no basis for any additional reduction 

in the penalty that she must incur. The FAA, in deciding to claim only 

$12,000, has given the Respondent all the consideration to which she may 

have been entitled. 

IV., 

. I.n consideration of the foregoing, and subject to review by the 

AdmInIstrator on appeal, or on his own motion, as provided in § 13.233 of 

the Rules ofPractice, 14 C.F.R. § 13.233, IT IS ORDERED that1. 	 Respondent Maria Taveras is liable to the United States ofAmerica 

as represented by the Federal Aviation Administration· for a civil ' 

penalty in the amount oftwelve thousand dollars ($12:000.00); and 

10 
2. 	 The aforesaid Respondent shall pay the amount for which she has 

been held liable herein to the Federal Aviation Administration 

forthwith. 

i~)?/J-: Isaac D. Benkin 

Administrative Law Judge 

[Note: This decision may be appealed to the Administrator of the FAA. 

The Notice of Appeal must be filed not later than 10 days after service 

ofthis decision (plus five additional days, if this decision is served by 

mail). 14 C.F.R. §§13.233(a), 13.211(e). The appeal must be perfected 

with a written briefor memorandum not later than 50 days after service 

of this decision (plus five additional days, if this decision is served by 

mail). 14 C.F.R. §§13.233(c), 13.211(e). The Notice of Appeal and brief 

or memorandum must be either (a) mailed to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 

20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright 

Building-Suite 2WI000, or (b) delivered personally or via expedited 

courier service to the Federal Aviation Administration, 600 

Independence Ave., S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI000, 

Washington, DC 20591,Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 14 

C.F.R. §§13.233(a), 13.210(a)(2), (1). A copy of the Notice ofAppeal and 

brief or memorandum should also be sent to counsel for the FAA in this 

proceeding. 14 C.F.R. §13.233(a).] 

11 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0005 

(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 2W1 0001 

ONE COpy 

Alexei Schacht, Respondent's Counsel 

Nalven & Schacht, Attorneys at Law 

350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4022 

New York, NY 10118 

TEL: 212-616-5540 

FAX: 212-616-5543 

Yolanda Ayala Bernal, Complainant's Counsel 


Office ofthe Regional Counsel 


Southwest Region, ASW -7E3, Y AB 


Federal Aviation Administration 


2601 Meacham Boulevard 


Fort Worth, TX 76137-0007 


TEL: 817-222-5099. 


FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 


. The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 


1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 


East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 


Washington, DC 20590 


TEL:~Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 


~- . Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 


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 IndependenceAvenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

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

I