BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRAN S PORTATION

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 , 20112 BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRAN S PORTATION

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 th is 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 thes e statements to correct the record. Southwest requests
leave from the Department to the extent necessary to file th is Reply. Good cause exists
for granting leave , as th is 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 t o the DRLC offices on behalf of Mr. Williams.3

I. MR. WILLIAMS’ ASSERT IONS A RE NOT CREDIBLE AND ARE CONTRADICTED BY SOUTHWEST AIRLINE S 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. 2 In fact, t he materials submitted by Mr. Williams on
November 3, 2011
, contain a number of misleading and/or incorrect statements that

c ast 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 MacMill a n 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 specifica lly 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 P ractice 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 a nd 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 M r. 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 De cl., ¶ 5 & 6

. Both Agent West and Supervisor MacMill a n 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 prejudice d ” is preposterous and again not credible. Williams Decl. ¶ 8 & 11.5

II. CONTRARY TO MR. WILL IAMS’ CLAIMS, SOUTHWEST DEVOTES EXTENSIVE AND APPROP RIATE RESOURCES TO TRAINING AND COMPLIANCE WITH PART 382, FAR BEYOND DOT REQUIREMENTS.

As discussed in Southwest‟s Answer, the c ompany 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. A t its own

initiat ive and at significant expense , Southwest provides annual recurrent disability

awareness 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 Sou thwest 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 Offic ials (“CROs”) th an 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 e mployees 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 Customer6

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 S ervice Coordinators, Team Leaders and

F acilitators are trained CROs
, and in Southwest‟s Cust omer Relations Department, all
Phone Representatives, P hone S upervisors, Writers, Writing Supervisors and

Consumer A dvocates are trained CROs. T h is commitment to training demonstrates the
importance that Southwest places on compliance with Part 382

.
III. MR. WILLIAMS HAS PRE SENTED NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF EITHER INDIVIDUAL OR SYSTEMIC VIOLATION S 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 car ried by each airline . As the Department is
well aware, Southwest carries more domestic pass engers 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. It7

follows that Southwest likely carries prop ortionally 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 f iled 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

servi ce animals is in any way inadequate

. In sum, Mr. Williams has failed to establish either that Southwest co mmitted 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 C omplainant‟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 20 00

- 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 , 2011CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 2 1 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