BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON DC

__________________________________________

)

FORMAL THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AND ) 

REQUEST TO COMMENCE ENFORCEMENT ) Docket No. OST-2011-0149

PROCEEDINGS OF DON EDWARD WILLIAMS )

__________________________________________ )

REPLY OF 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Madeleine Johnson Robert W. Kneisley

 Vice President General Counsel Associate General Counsel

Justin Almand Leslie C. Abbott

 Attorney Senior Attorney

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

2702 Love Field Drive 1901 L Street, N.W.

Dallas, TX 75235-1611 Suite 640

Washington, D.C. 20036

bob.kneisley@wnco.com

(202) 263-6284

 

November 21, 2011
2

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON DC

__________________________________________

)

FORMAL THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AND ) 

REQUEST TO COMMENCE ENFORCEMENT ) Docket No. OST-2011-0149

PROCEEDINGS OF DON EDWARD WILLIAMS )

__________________________________________ )

REPLY OF 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

Southwest Airlines Co. (“Southwest”) hereby files this Reply in response to the 

Complainant's Opposition (“Opposition”) and Declarations of Mr. Williams (“Williams 

Decl.”) and Mr. Cuellar (“Cuellar Decl.”) (jointly “Declarations”) submitted to the 

Department by the Disability Rights Legal Center (“DRLC”) on behalf of Don Edward 

Williams dated November 3, 2011.1 The Complaint‟s Opposition and Declarations 

make a number of inaccurate and/or misleading statements regarding the events that 

resulted in Southwest denying Mr. Williams‟ boarding, and Southwest wishes to respond 

to the most egregious of these statements to correct the record. Southwest requests 

leave from the Department to the extent necessary to file this Reply. Good cause exists 

for granting leave, as this submission is narrowly tailored to respond to erroneous 

statements, and will provide the Department with a more complete and accurate record 

upon which to base its decision.

 

1

In both the Complaint and Opposition, Mr. Williams stated that he did not receive a refund for the unused portion of 

his Southwest ticket. As stated in Southwest‟s Answer, Southwest began processing a refund of Mr. Williams‟ ticket 

on February 15, the day of the incident, and mailed the refund to Mr. Williams‟ at his address of record on February 

25. However, since Mr. Williams claims he never received the refund, Southwest has re-issued the refund, per 

standard company practice, and is mailing it today to the DRLC offices on behalf of Mr. Williams. 
3

I. MR. WILLIAMS’ ASSERTIONS ARE NOT CREDIBLE AND ARE

CONTRADICTED BY SOUTHWEST AIRLINES EMPLOYEES’ SWORN 

STATEMENTS.

As Southwest explained in detail in its Answer, Mr. Williams was denied boarding 

on February 15, 2011 due to his extremely belligerent, verbally abusive, and unsafe 

behavior, not due to any disability. Nothing in Mr. Williams‟ Opposition or Declarations 

changes that overriding fact.2In fact, the materials submitted by Mr. Williams on 

November 3, 2011, contain a number of misleading and/or incorrect statements that 

cast further doubt on Mr. Williams‟ version of the February 15 events. To begin with, the 

description and pictures of a dog “which weighs under five pounds” and “only travels 

inside a bag attached to the back of [his] wheelchair” (Williams Decl. ¶ 4) are not 

credible. This description is entirely at odds with the size and behavior of the dog that 

both Agent LaRita West and Supervisor Ellen MacMillan stated accompanied Mr. 

Williams on February 15, as attested to in their previously submitted Declarations. 

Moreover, Agent West has submitted a Second Declaration that directly refutes Mr. 

Williams‟ description of the dog, stating that “[t]he small, white dog in the photographs 

attached to Mr. Cuellar‟s Declaration is not the dog I observed with Mr. Williams on 

February 15, 2011, and described in my September 25, 2011 Declaration.” Second 

Declaration of LaRita West (hereafter “West Second Decl.”), attached as Exhibit A, ¶ 4. 

Agent West states specifically that “[t]he dog that Mr. Williams brought with him to the 

airport on February 15 was at least three times larger than the dog in the picture.” Id. at 

 

2

The Complainant‟s Opposition contains lengthy argumentation asserting that Southwest has violated various 

federal rules of civil procedure. However, DOT proceedings are not subject to the FRCP and these arguments have 

no merit. The Department‟s proceedings are governed by its Rules of Practice contained in 14 CFR Part 302, with 

which Southwest has complied.
4

¶ 5. Moreover, “[t]he dog with Mr. Williams at the airport on February 15 was standing 

on the ground and was not in a bag. That dog [at the airport] would not fit in the bag on 

the back of Mr. William‟s wheel chair in the pictures taken by Mr. Cuellar.” Id. at ¶ 6.

Not only have both of Southwest‟s employees referred to a “large” dog walking 

alongside Mr. Williams but it was the size of the dog that prompted LaRita to inform Mr. 

Williams, after credible visual cues suggested it was not a trained service animal, that

his dog would not qualify for Southwest‟s carry-on pet program. Agent West (an 

employee with over 17 years‟ experience working in airport customer service) states “[i]f 

the dog that Mr. Williams brought to the airport was the dog in the picture and was 

under five pounds as stated in Mr. Williams‟ Declaration, it would have qualified for our 

pet policy and I would not have informed him that his dog „exceeded the size 

requirements of our pet policy.‟” Id. at ¶ 7. 

More importantly, Mr. Williams‟ claim that he “never yelled or berated Ms. 

MacMillan or any other Southwest Employee...” is simply not credible. As described in 

the declarations of Southwest‟s employees who were involved in the incident, 

Southwest denied Mr. Williams boarding as a direct result of his verbally abusive and 

unsafe conduct, including profanities and excessive yelling, toward several Southwest 

employees who repeatedly tried to assist him. Williams Decl., ¶ 11; MacMillan Decl. ¶

5 & 6; West Decl., ¶ 5 & 6. Both Agent West and Supervisor MacMillan describe in great 

detail the yelling, verbal abuse and explicit language that Mr. Williams subjected them 

to. The notion that Mr. Williams somehow asked Ellen nicely and in a calm voice “if she 

was prejudiced” is preposterous and again not credible. Williams Decl. ¶ 8 & 11. 
5

II. CONTRARY TO MR. WILLIAMS’ CLAIMS, SOUTHWEST DEVOTES 

EXTENSIVE AND APPROPRIATE RESOURCES TO TRAINING AND 

COMPLIANCE WITH PART 382, FAR BEYOND DOT REQUIREMENTS.

As discussed in Southwest‟s Answer, the company takes compliance with Part 

382 very seriously and devotes significant resources toward appropriate training. In 

fact, Southwest‟s disability training programs far exceed DOT requirements. At its own 

initiative and at significant expense, Southwest provides annual recurrent disabilityawareness training to its frontline employees, three times more often than required by 

14 CFR § 382.141(a)(5), which requires training only once every three years. 

Southwest is, of course, mindful that its training program must accurately and 

sufficiently cover all regulatory requirements in Section 382.141. The Department has 

reviewed Southwest‟s disability-awareness training materials and has not raised any 

concerns with Southwest regarding its program and, to the contrary, has always reacted 

positively to the company‟s training curriculum. 

In addition, Southwest designates and trains a substantially higher number of 

employees to be Complaint Resolution Officials (“CROs”) than required by 14 CFR 

§ 382.151(b), which requires only that U.S. carriers “make a CRO available” at each 

airport it serves during operating hours either in person or by phone. Instead, Southwest

trains more than 700 employees as CROs, encompassing every Customer Service and 

Operations (Boarding) Agent, every Customer Service, Operations, and Ramp & 

Operations Supervisor, and every Manager and Assistant Manager at each airport it 

serves. At the Phoenix Airport alone, Southwest has 45 trained CROs, which means 

that an average of 12 are on site and available to assist customers at all times. 

Furthermore, in Southwest‟s Operations Coordination Center (“OCC”), all Customer 
6

Service Coordinators, who are available during all hours of flight operation, are trained 

CROs and are available via telephone in the event a CRO is otherwise unavailable at 

the airport. As well, in Southwest‟s Customer Service & Support Department

(commonly known as Reservations), all Service Coordinators, Team Leaders and 

Facilitators are trained CROs, and in Southwest‟s Customer Relations Department, all 

Phone Representatives, Phone Supervisors, Writers, Writing Supervisors and 

Consumer Advocates are trained CROs. This commitment to training demonstrates the 

importance that Southwest places on compliance with Part 382.

III. MR. WILLIAMS HAS PRESENTED NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF EITHER 

INDIVIDUAL OR SYSTEMIC VIOLATIONS BY SOUTHWEST AND THE

COMPLAINT SHOULD THEREFORE BE DISMISSED. 

As discussed above, Southwest exceeds DOT disability-awareness training 

requirements, and far surpasses the number of required CROs at individual airport 

locations across its system. In addition, Mr. Williams‟ claim that the number of service 

animal complaints received by DOT is evidence of “systemic and pervasive” violations 

by Southwest has no merit. Mr. Williams‟ reliance on these complaint numbers are 

flawed in three important ways. First, the number of complaints must be viewed in 

comparison to the number of passengers carried by each airline. As the Department is 

well aware, Southwest carries more domestic passengers than any other airline, and 

therefore it is not at all surprising that Southwest receives more complaints on an 

absolute basis than airlines that carry fewer passengers. Second, Southwest has 

received anecdotal information from customers that it is a preferred carrier for 

passengers traveling with service and emotional support animals, just as Mr. Williams 

stated Southwest was his preferred carrier prior to this incident. Williams Decl., ¶ 12. It 
7

follows that Southwest likely carries proportionally more service and emotional support 

animals than other, less preferred airlines. Finally, the service animal complaint 

numbers contained in Appendix A to Mr. Williams‟ Complaint and cited repeatedly in his 

submissions represent only complaints filed with DOT, not the number of violations 

committed. When complaints are filed, DOT provides the carrier with an opportunity to 

research the incident and present evidence that no violation occurred. Thus, the 

number of complaints filed proves nothing in and of itself. Mr. Williams has offered no 

credible evidence that Southwest‟s compliance record toward disabled passengers with 

service animals is in any way inadequate. 

In sum, Mr. Williams has failed to establish either that Southwest committed a 

violation in denying him boarding on February 15, or that Southwest lacks adequate 

training or compliance with respect to the carriage of disabled passengers with service 

animals generally. The Complainant‟s assertions to the contrary are either not credible 

or are contradicted by sworn statements of Southwest employees, or both, and Mr. 

Williams has presented no meaningful evidence of systemic or pervasive violations by 

Southwest. Under these circumstances there is no factual basis for further enforcement 

action, nor would the public interest be served by the Department doing so.3 Southwest 

therefore reiterates its request that the Complaint be dismissed. 

 

3

See, e.g., Order of Dismissal, Order 2000-7-4 and Order Denying Petition for Review, Order 2000-9-15 (Docket No. 

2000-7009) (complaint dismissed where no public interest consideration warranted further investigation 

and the Department's limited enforcement resources were better used to pursue other disability-related 

complaints).
8

CONCUSION

For the reasons given above and in Southwest‟s September 26 Answer, the 

Complaint is without merit and should be dismissed. 

Respectfully submitted,

 _______________________

Robert W. Kneisley

Associate General Counsel

Southwest Airlines Co.

November 21, 2011
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 21

st day of November, 2011, a copy of the foregoing 

Reply of Southwest Airlines Co. was sent via E-mail to the following person:

Surisa E. Rivers, Esq.

Disability Rights Legal Center

Surisa.Rivers@LLS.edu

_______________________

Leslie C. Abbott
EXHIBIT A