SERVED OCTOBER 14, 2011 

lE;-'ARiMENTOF 

iRANSFORWIOM 

•^•••'^KE^ OPERATIONS 

im ill] n p [: ii5 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OP HEARINGS 

WASHfNGTON, D.C. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

V. 

RODDY L. COX, 

Respondent. . 

FAA DOCKET NO. CPIOGLOOOS 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMSNo. FAA-2010-0623 

INITIAL DECISION 

OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

Found: 1) Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. §121.580 of the Federal Aviation Regulations as 

charged in the complaint; 

2) Respondent is hereby assessed a civil penalt>' of $1,100. 

I. Background 

On July 26, 2009, Roddy L. Cox ("Cox" or "Respondent") was a passenger 

on board AirTran Airways flight 349, operating nonstop from Los Angeles. CA 

C'LAX") to Milwaukee, Wl ("MKE"). During the flight, Cox's conduct, as viewed by 

the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant," "FAA," or "the agency") led to 

the filing of the instant charge. The Complaint alleges that Cox violated section 

121.580 of the Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs"), 14 C.F.R. §121.580. 

Section 121.580 states: 

No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a 

. crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties 

aboard an aircraft being operated under this part. 
The agency asked for a civil penalty of $1,100. Respondent denied the 

charge. 

I held a hearing on February 1, 2011, in Milwaukee. Respondent failed to 

appear. 

II. Discussion 

A. Decision 

i found that the agency proved its case. Further, I levied a civil penalty 

against Respondent of $1,100, as the FAA had proposed (Tr. 49-50). This Initial 

Decision ("I.D.") memorializes and details my findings and conclusions.. 

B. The Inciden t 

The FAA put on two witnesses and introduced three exhibits. Jennifer 

Ruiz was Complainant's first witness. She is a flight attendant employed by 

AirTran. On this flight she was the "C" attendant, working in the rear of coach 

class. Coach class on this Boeing 737-700 aircraft consists of three seats on 

either side of an aisle. Ms. Ruiz testified that she encountered Mr. Cox, the 

respondent, while she was serving passengers from a beverage cart in the aisle. 

This service was the first of three services the flight attendants were scheduled to 

perform on this approximately four-hour flight (Tr. 10-11, 14-18). 

Ms. Ruiz stated that, facing the front, she had stopped at Row 17. Row 17 

is one row from the rear of the aircraft. At that point Mr. Cox, sitting in 17C, 

tapped her bottom with a cup he was holding and requested a soft drink. She 

replied, "Yes, just don't touch my butt next time." Ruiz then moved the cart up 

two rows, to Row 15, before turning around and addressing Respondent. She 

asked him, "Now what would you like?" Respondent, she testified, became 

belligerent and hostile. He replied, "I don't want anything you have. You're an 

idiot. You're a fuckin' idiot;" (Tr. 10-11; Exh. C-1). He continued in this vein as 

he stormed off to the rear. Ms. Ruiz said. He continued to use antagonistic 

language liberally mixed with profanity (Tr. 18-19; Exh. C-1). 

Ms. Ruiz stated that she felt intimidated and uncomfortable - so much so 

that she asked the "B" flight attendant, who was working the front side of the 

beverage cart, to switch places with her (Tr. 15, 17). She feared another 

confrontation with this passenger. Ms. Ruiz also found herself unable to perform 

her other duties. She did not do the second and third service normally performed 

by flight attendants in the first hour of flight. Nor was she able to collect herself 

sufficiently to perform an arrival check later. An arrival check is a mandatory 

function performed just prior to landing which obligates flight attendants to 

determine if passengers are in compliance with safety regulations (Tr. 22-26; 

Exh. C-1). 
Ms. Ruiz notified the captain of the incident involving Mr. Cox soon after it 

occurred. Before disembarkation Ruiz also submitted a statement summarizing it 

(Exh. C-1). 

For Ms. Ruiz the effects of this experience lingered. She was unable to 

work at all for a month. She also was unable to work on any flights, other than 

the shortest available, for a year (Tr. 29-31). 

Edward J. Rooney was Complainant's second and final witness. He is the 

law enforcement representative for the Transportation Security Administration 

("TSA") for the State of Wisconsin. He testified that he had been called to MKE 

on July 26, 2009, in response to a report of an unruly passenger. He interviewed 

Mr. Cox after Cox had exited the plane. At that point Cox was in the custody of 

local and federal authorities. They had been called to the arriving aircraft after 

the pilot had radioed law enforcement about Respondent's behavior and had 

requested assistance (Tr. 33-37). 

Mr. Rooney testified that Respondent admitted making the comments 

atthbuted to him by Ms. Ruiz in her statement (Tr. 37; see Exh. C-1). More 

specifically, he admitted touching her; using the expletives stated; and "getting in 

her face." (Tr. 38-43; Exhs. C-2 and C-3). 

C. Findings and Conclusions 

I reaffirm my finding at the hearing that Respondent violated §121.580 as 

charged. Complainant proved that Respondent intimidated and assaulted a 

crewmember and interfered with the performance of a crewmember, all in 

violation of that provision. 

The discussion above demonstrates that Respondent's offensive and 

truculent conduct significantly interfered with the duties of the "C" flight attendant, 

Jennifer Ruiz. On account of his behavior, she became unable to perform 

several of her duties. Respondent's conduct also created a generalized and 

entirely reasonable fear of him. These consequences of Cox's behavior each 

make out a violation of §121.580. Additionally, Cox's touching of Ms. Ruiz' rear 

not only was outrageous, but, as an unwanted touching, constituted an assault 

under §121.580. Howard Gotbetter, FAA Order No. 2000-17 (August 11, 2000). 

As such. Respondent committed three independent violations of §121.580.^ 

' I note that the repeated use of profanity, which characterized Respondent's language in addressing Ms. 

Ruiz, can itself create an atmosphere of intimidation sufficient to violate §121.580. It suggests an 

individual unable to control his emotions and who, as such, appears to pose a risk of hann. Avigdor Shallit. 

FAA Dockei No. CP99EA005I, Jiiilial Deas'ion of Adrnmstrat^ve Law Judge Burton S. Koiko dated 

September 22, 2000, 2000 FAA Lexis 955. 
III. Penalty 

At the hearing 1 assessed a civil penalty against Respondent of $1,100. I 

affirm that finding and explain it in the discussion following. 

A penalty assessment in a case such as this must weigh a respondent's 

behavior and evaluate its effect. In this light, 1 found that an assessment of 

$1,100 was fully warranted (Tr. 50). 

The belligerent and fundamentally disrespectful character of Respondent's 

behavior not only interfered with the duties of the "C" flight attendant and 

intimidated her, but represented a direct challenge to her authority. Mr. Cox's 

conduct 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). 

As I pointed out at the hearing, flight attendants are not waiters (Tr. 52). 

They perform vital safety functions aboard operating aircraft. A flight attendant's 

primary responsibility is not to secure passengers' comfort, but to ensure their 

safety and security. They 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.^ If a flight attendant has to deal with an 

antagonistic, hostile passenger and suffers consequences such as intimidation 

and personal distress, he or she is compromised in attending to 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. We have seen that that is exactly what occurred in this case. Ms. 

Ruiz was unable to perform the necessary arrival check on account of her 

confrontation with Respondent (I.D., p. 2). 

We live in a safety-.and security-attuned.environment. Against.the 

background of the multiple aircraft hijackings leading to the loss of over 3,000 

lives in 2001, that environment may not be more highly sensitive than aboard 

operating aircraft. In such an atmosphere it is imperative that airline passengers 

fully respect the crew's authority. 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; Tr. 

19-20. 

" Tr. 18-19. Such concern.'; are not merely theoretical. Ver)' recently, on October 2. 201 I, nine passengers 

aboard a JetBlue tlighl from San Juan. PR, to Boston, MA complained of injuries to their backs and necks 

resulting from turbulence. According to the Boston Globe of October 3, 201 I, the Massachusetts Port 

Authority and Boston emergency services responded to the flight's touchdown. On August 3, 2009, a 

Continental Airlines Boeing 767-200 operating from Rio de Janeiro. Brazil, lo Houston. TX, hil turbulence 

so severe that, according to one passenger, "People that weren't seat-belted in flew up and hit the ceilings." 

Seven people were hospitalized. Sec Hww.cnn.com. 
Mr. Cox' behavior, in its character and effect, merits a significant sanction. 

Indeed, the FAA had cause to suggest a higher penalty. I stated at the hearing, 

and reiterate here, that I might well have assessed a civil penalty in a greater 

amount had it been pled.^ 

In conclusion, I find that a civil penalty of $1,100 is more than 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, substantialfor an individual, also will 

act as a deterrent to Respondent and to other passengers. It will fulfill the 

statutory purpose. 

On the basis of the foregoing, I hereby assess a civil penalty of $1,100 

against Respondent Roddy L. Cox for a violation of 14 C.F.R. §121.380." 

Richard C. Good^^in 

U.S. AdministrativeTraw Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

^ Tr. 50-51. A civil penalty greater than that sought by the agency may not be assessed. §13.16(1). 

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

sections 13.210, I3.2ll(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, \\' 

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

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

personally or via expedited courier sei"vice 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 ihe.nofice ofappeal and briefer memorandum also must be sent to agency 

counsel. Service upon the presidingjudge is optional. 
FAA Docket No. CP10GL0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Altention." Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur^Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Roddy L. Cox, Respondent 

3918S. Clay Street 

Green Bay, WI 54301 

Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX; 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Oftlce of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.H. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202 366-7536 

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

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

DC 20591; Anention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30. 
FAA Docket No. CPJOGL0005 

(Civil Penalty Actioti) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Cierk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Roddy L. Cox, Respondent 

3918 S.Clay Street 

Green Bay, Wl 54301 

Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room El2-320' 

Vv'ashington, DC 20590 - • 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202 366-7536 

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

Aviaiion Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W,, Wilbur WriglU Building—Suite 2W1000, Wasliington. 

DC 20591; Atlenlion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30.