A couple of days ago, I covered a lawsuit whereby a disabled passenger sued American Airlines over a recent experience on a transatlantic flight. She reached out regarding my story, and I have to issue an apology, as I didn’t do justice to the core of the complaint, and that’s my fault.
I promise to try and do better in the future, starting with covering this topic once again, to accurately reflect the claims made. While the United States is known for how litigious it is, and while there are some points here that might seem a little extreme, the reality remains — some airlines show complete disregard for disabled travelers, and that’s not acceptable.
In this post:
Disabled traveler sues to hold American accountable
A traveler is suing American in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, claiming that the Fort Worth-based airline violated her rights under the Air Carrier Access Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in air travel.
This situation dates back to June 12, 2025, when a woman was traveling with her husband and son from Paris (CDG) to Chicago (ORD). The mother has restrictions on her mobility, which require her to use a powered wheelchair, and her son is autistic.
The traveler tried to use American’s online check-in system, but she claims that the system showed the wrong titles for her son and husband, which “triggered a system lockout that barred her from online check-in and forced her and her family to conduct same-day airport check-in.”
The traveler claims that having to check-in at the airport led to “physical and physiological burden and fatigue, time compression and disruption of medical routines, and risk to pre-arranged disability accommodations.”
Per the complaint, “for individuals with disabilities and their dependents with complex medical or neurodevelopmental needs, such as Plaintiff and her son, advance online check-in is not a discretionary convenience but an essential and protected right under federal law.” Now, as I’ll discuss below, I think that claim is a little questionable. However, that was only the start of the issues, and I think there’s a lot of merit to the other claims made.
While at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport, the traveler requested to speak to a Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO), who is the airline representative with the authority to resolve disability complaints. Per Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, all US airlines, including at outstations, must have a CRO on duty, who is available in-person or by phone. However, this traveler was instead directed to a remote voicemail inbox, asking for “feedback,” and promising a response within 48 hours.
Then upon arrival in Chicago, the airline refused to return her wheelchair directly to the gate. The custom prescription wheelchair (which had been tagged to be returned to the aircraft) was instead delivered to baggage claim, and she was reportedly told that this was due to the wheelchair’s weight.
As a non-ambulatory passenger medically unable to use an alternative chair, she was stranded on the aircraft. She had to educate flight attendants on the rules, and a flight attendant reportedly told her that “most” airlines actually send wheelchairs to baggage claim.
She ended up having to stay on the aircraft, and it took around an hour for her wheelchair to be recovered, and to be brought where it needed to be. Per the complaint, “the Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff substantial and foreseeable harm, including physical pain, humiliation, emotional trauma, and a documented medical decompensation in the weeks following the flight.”
In response to the incident, American offered the traveler a $75 travel credit, which was considered to be “grossly inadequate and insulting.” She then filed a complaint with the DOT, and received a response that “contained a self-incriminating admission whereby the Defendant quoted the federal regulation requiring immediate access to a Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO) while simultaneously describing its own non-compliant actions.”
American then retained external legal counsel to defend its behavior. Per the complaint, “the letter confessed that it is ‘not uncommon’ for the airline to unlawfully divert heavy wheelchairs to baggage claim, confirming a systematic disregard for federal law.”
The lawsuit argues that what happened constitutes an “accident” under the Montreal Convention:
“Pursuant to Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, the Defendant is liable for damages sustained in case of bodily injury of a passenger caused by an ‘accident’ taking place on board the aircraft or in the course of embarking or disembarking. The Defendant’s unlawful diversion of the Plaintiff’s medically necessary wheelchair, refusal to return it to the aircraft door, and the creation of a hostile and unsafe environment constituted an “accident.” This accident caused the Plaintiff to suffer bodily injury, including physical and emotional distress, cardiovascular instability, and severe medical decompensation, which was foreseeably and significantly exacerbated by the acute distress she experienced while being forced to witness both the emotional harm inflicted upon her disabled minor son and the overt hostility directed at her husband by the Defendant’s personnel.”
This reflects a systematic issue for disabled travelers
The United States is of course incredibly litigious, and people like to poke fun at the extent to which people make claims of “emotional distress,” or whatever. However, it’s also important to hold major corporations accountable, especially for repeated failures.
Disabled travelers face a variety of challenges that many of us could never imagine, and I can appreciate the need for them to advocate for their rights. After all, most publicly traded companies don’t actually care about people, and they’ll only do things that positively help their bottom line.
Going in chronological order, the one thing I take issue with is regarding the claim that “advance online check-in is not a discretionary convenience but an essential and protected right under federal law.” As far as I know, that’s simply not correct.
For example, if someone is selected for additional screening (which is outside of a carrier’s control, and you’ll know based on “SSSS” being written on the boarding pass), then online check-in is blocked. Even when an airline offers online check-in, there are other situations where it might not work, like when documents need to be verified. For that matter, some airlines flying to the United States don’t even offer online check-in.
It’s possible I’m missing something, but I don’t see how guaranteed online check-in can be considered a federally protected right.
That being said, regarding everything else, I think the traveler is 100% correct. Keep in mind that in late 2024, American was fined $50 million for its disregard for passengers with wheelchairs. Per the DOT notice at the time:
“The Department finds that American failed in numerous cases to provide passengers with disabilities using wheelchairs with adequate enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance, including assistance in moving within the terminal. Specifically, American failed in numerous cases to provide adequate wheelchair assistance to passengers with disabilities from 2019 to 2023, which in some cases resulted in injury to passengers. OACP considers inadequate wheelchair assistance to include untimely assistance, unsafe physical assistance, and undignified assistance. In addition, from 2019 to 2023, passengers reported that American mishandled thousands of passengers’ wheelchairs and scooters by damaging them or delaying their timely return.”
While those of us without disabilities might not be familiar with them, the regulations here are straightforward — airlines need to give disabled travelers access to a Complaint Resolution Officer, and they need to return wheelchairs to aircraft, if that’s where they’re requested.
American is not following those regulations. Period. According to the lawsuit, the legal counsel that American retained claimed that it’s “not uncommon” for wheelchairs to be diverted to baggage claim, but that’s not something that federal regulations allow for.
So how do you hold a major corporation accountable when it’s not following laws, despite having already been fined $50 million for these exact types of violations in the past? This is probably the only realistic way to do so…
Bottom line
A disabled traveler is suing American Airlines over a recent flight from Paris to Chicago, where she claims the airline violated the Air Carrier Access Act. Crucially, it seems that American didn’t make a Complaint Resolution Officer available, and also refused to return her wheelchair to the gate, instead sending it to baggage claim.
While mistakes happen, it’s clear that American has some systematic issues with looking after travelers with disabilities. The fact that both flight attendants and American’s own communication claimed that wheelchairs are sometimes sent to baggage claims contradicts what the law requires.
Under a year ago, American was fined $50 million for the disregard shown to those with wheelchairs. So I think there’s a lot of merit to this case, and lawsuits are probably the only way to bring about change.
What do you make of this lawsuit against American?
I know for a fact the passenger in question is annoying, but that doesn't qualify as disabled. I have seen her walk around all willy-nilly, trying to push people out of wheelchairs because of her weight.
She's r-tarded, for sure, though.
Note Brickl keeps sending take down notices. Any coverage that is not in line with her perspective is to be "banned" for "prejudicing" her case. The case is nonsense and the media attention she brought upon herself by sending out a press release. She is litigating pro se which means without an attorney (i suspect because no decent attorney would agree to handle the nonsense in these "claims"). That she makes these threats is indicative...
Note Brickl keeps sending take down notices. Any coverage that is not in line with her perspective is to be "banned" for "prejudicing" her case. The case is nonsense and the media attention she brought upon herself by sending out a press release. She is litigating pro se which means without an attorney (i suspect because no decent attorney would agree to handle the nonsense in these "claims"). That she makes these threats is indicative of the nonsense. Ben does a great job with this blog. For her to make threats is inane. For "Ross" to make snide comments without foundation is simple ignorance. The lawsuit is BS and its existence actually harms the cause of seeking to assist the disabled.
Lets analyze the claims:
1) on line check in -- meritless
Brickl could have checked in by phone. She opted not to. Any issues that arise from the lack of on line check in availability are solely her fault.
2) CRO availability -- meritless
Given that issue #1 was NOT in any manner a disability related claim and given that Brickl opted not to speak with AA special services she waived...
Lets analyze the claims:
1) on line check in -- meritless
Brickl could have checked in by phone. She opted not to. Any issues that arise from the lack of on line check in availability are solely her fault.
2) CRO availability -- meritless
Given that issue #1 was NOT in any manner a disability related claim and given that Brickl opted not to speak with AA special services she waived any claim here. CRO rights are not about "entertaining the fantasies of disabled travelers" they are to address immediate problems. In this case if Brickl had bothered to use the phone there would have been no problem.
3. Wheelchair non delivery to gate (the ONLY claim with merit)
AA screwed this up. But (and legally it is a big but) Brickl refused alternative transport to reunite her with her chair sooner. Again a refusal to mitigate damage when it is available excuses yhe othet side from most liability. Brickl's "damages" could have been greatly aleviated if she had accepted transport to where the chair was. Only the regulatory issue remains.
Thus: Brickl has NO private right of action and NO basis for a lawsuit. The regulatory violation can ONLY be handled by DOT. There was no discrimination and no refusal to provide reasonable accomodation. There is NO claim under the Montreal Convention ... there was no accident and all "consequential damages" stemmed from Brickl's refusal of the alternative transport of her to where the chair was.
This is not about precedent or helping the disabled. This case seems to be exclusively about an angry woman who did not succeed in bullying people. There was no reason for her to lecture AA staff for an hour. There is no reason to keep "correcting" those whose comments disagree with Brickl's opinion about her own case. It is insane that she posts such comments in the third person ....she is BOTH plaintiff and attorney. This lawsuit is not newsworthy. It is instead sad.
That all said sending threats to Ben and I (and to who knows whom else) for expressing opinions is over the top. Brickl knows at some level that she is spouting nonsense and hopes to prevent exposure through nonstop bullying.
I hope the resolution here is twofold: AA should do a better job with wheelchairs and AA should ban Brickl from flying.
A guy named Michael Lissack submitted information to the IRS that he thought showed that a condominium development group evaded taxes through its treatment of golf-club-membership deposits. The IRS deemed the information Lissack submitted sufficiently specific and credible to warrant opening an examination, but later concluded that the membership deposits were correctly reported. Through its own further investigation, however, the IRS discovered an unrelated problem: The same development group had taken an impermissible deduction on...
A guy named Michael Lissack submitted information to the IRS that he thought showed that a condominium development group evaded taxes through its treatment of golf-club-membership deposits. The IRS deemed the information Lissack submitted sufficiently specific and credible to warrant opening an examination, but later concluded that the membership deposits were correctly reported. Through its own further investigation, however, the IRS discovered an unrelated problem: The same development group had taken an impermissible deduction on intercompany bad debt. The IRS eventually ordered the development group to pay a large adjustment relating to its treatment of that debt, but it denied Lissack’s claim for a percentage of those proceeds.
Lissack appealed to the Tax Court, which found the claim meritless, and the Court of Appeals, which agreed that the claim was meritless, and finally the Supreme Court, which sent it back to the Court of Appeals and told it to take a fresh look at it. Which the court did, and again turned him down because the claim was still meritless.
Probably a different Michael Lissack. But when it comes to whistleblowers, that Lissack and Kelsey Brickl are kindred spirits. Although I’m not sure Brickl is in it for the money. She’s asking for an injunction to require American Airlines to follow the law, and for third-party monitoring to make sure they do. That part, of course, never gets reported, so no one has yet called it meritless. Lissack was just asking for money.
Oh i am the same person. You left out that but for my complaint the US got $60 million from the developer. You also left out the $1 billion plus the US has recovered from my complaints. Brickl is imho out of her mind. If you believe that about me fine.
Ross i won a unanimous opinion from the US Supreme Court may i ask what your supposed credentials are? And what does any of this have to do with a travel blog run by Ben? You sir are the one who is way out of line.
So this person is suing AA for various reasons, including not having access to online check-in. And threatening commenters with legal action. And may have threatened Lucky, leading to a revision of the article. Wonder how much legal activity has originated from same plaintiff around other situations..
Please do not apologize to this whiny, disabled Karen.
This unsolicited LinkedIn message (received August 11, 2025), combined with your repeated ad hominem comments toward me on One Mile At A Time, constitute harassment as defined under Illinois law (720 ILCS 5/26.5-3) and under federal standards given that I am the Plaintiff in Brickl v. American Airlines (Case No. 1:25-cv-09158) currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. You will take note that your communications have included personal disparagement...
This unsolicited LinkedIn message (received August 11, 2025), combined with your repeated ad hominem comments toward me on One Mile At A Time, constitute harassment as defined under Illinois law (720 ILCS 5/26.5-3) and under federal standards given that I am the Plaintiff in Brickl v. American Airlines (Case No. 1:25-cv-09158) currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. You will take note that your communications have included personal disparagement designed to harass (“No jury will like you”) and unsolicited predictions about the outcome of my ongoing litigation. Such conduct is reasonably calculated to cause emotional distress and can be interpreted as an attempt to prejudice a potential jury in an active federal case in which I am self-represented.
Your contact is improper because (1) it directly references active federal litigation, (2) it seeks to undermine my standing and credibility as a pro se litigant outside the confines of lawful court proceedings, and (3) it is part of a pattern of unsolicited communications from you regarding my legal matter. Sir, the combination of your online commentary and direct messages may be presented to a court as evidence of harassment, intimidation of a litigant, and potential witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Your actions could reasonably dissuade participation in court processes.
Accordingly, Mr. Lissack, I am preserving this unsolicited LinkedIn message and all of your public comments directed to me in their entirety for potential inclusion in court filings and/or referral to the appropriate authorities, including LinkedIn’s legal compliance team, the Northern District of Illinois, and law enforcement. I am also hereby notifying you that any further unsolicited contact or online commentary whatsoever from you regarding me, my disability, or my legal case will be treated as harassment and pursued accordingly under applicable law.
This is your one and only warning, Mr. Lissack. Cease all contact with me in any form (direct, indirect, public, or private) effective immediately. Should you disregard this one and only notice, I will move without further discussion to seek all remedies available to me under federal and state law, including but not limited to: injunctive relief, protective orders, and the pursuit of civil and criminal penalties for harassment.
Sincerely,
Kelsey M. Robertson-Brickl
Plaintiff, Brickl v. American Airlines, Case No. 1:25-cv-09158
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
As a traveler who is disabled, please note that the PERSON comes first and disability comes second, i.e. a traveler (person) who is disabled, not "a disabled traveler".
Thank you.
You don't speak for all of us. I have no issue with disabled traveller myself.
I was curious about the original article Lucky wrote “a couple days ago.” Went back, couldn’t find it. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess a letter was sent forcing Lucky to take it down and put up this correction instead, and probably force him to keep it up.
Lucky, blink once if I’m wrong.
I would like to take a moment and acknowledge “Plaintiff’s” disabilities must be severe and...
I was curious about the original article Lucky wrote “a couple days ago.” Went back, couldn’t find it. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess a letter was sent forcing Lucky to take it down and put up this correction instead, and probably force him to keep it up.
Lucky, blink once if I’m wrong.
I would like to take a moment and acknowledge “Plaintiff’s” disabilities must be severe and tragic. I would also like to say that the greater tragedy is when aggrieved parties force themselves, their trauma, upon the rest of us. By doing so you rob yourself of the opportunity to receive genuine grace and sympathy and end up sounding insufferable.
The "plaintiff" threatened me for disagreeing with her publicly. She has no lawyer for a reason. AA will win this case.
How is she forcing herself upon the rest of us? Court filings are public records. Did she send out a press release to announce it? Or did a bot searching for airline cases come across it and notify the blogosphere? Why do readers think they can comment on inaccurate and incomplete stories, and in at least one case contact her directly as if she's a public figure? MYOB.
At least PYOK is transparent about...
How is she forcing herself upon the rest of us? Court filings are public records. Did she send out a press release to announce it? Or did a bot searching for airline cases come across it and notify the blogosphere? Why do readers think they can comment on inaccurate and incomplete stories, and in at least one case contact her directly as if she's a public figure? MYOB.
At least PYOK is transparent about changes being made to a post. Here is how he handled it:
Change Log:
August 11, 2025 – Headline changed
August 11, 2025 – Additional context of lawsuit added
August 11, 2025 – Background around the DOT fine on American Airlines added.
* * *
Who can spot the logical fallacy in the following:
1) Plaintiff seeks damages under the Montreal Convention.
2) The maximum damages allowed under the Montreal Convention is $216,000.
3) Therefore, Plaintiff seeks $216,000 damages.
Congratulations! You spotted it. You’re better than all the bloggers (like Ben, in his first post) who wrote that she wants $216,000 (or maybe $219,000; the amount is based on currencies that fluctuate daily).
Of course, since her complaint doesn’t specify an amount, maybe that’s what she wants. Maybe she wants more, because most of her claims derive from federal law that don’t require Montreal Convention involvement. You could ask her, or you could just make up a number that makes her look greedy.
Yes she sent out a press release and yes she has threatened the press.
How do you know she sent out a press release, at least before all the inaccurate bloggers attacked her without contacting her? Do you have a copy of it? Who is your source?
Her web site
There are some who post herein who are clearly in denial about their mental perturbations. They troll certain individuals mercilessly, they have nothing to contribute except their hysterical incompetence, insecurities and vitriol.
Plain Jane, has, just a few posts below, presented the readership with a most graphic example of her obsessive compulsive disorder. Thank you, whom ever you really are, for demonstrating your true mental health issues for all to see. Do seek help...
There are some who post herein who are clearly in denial about their mental perturbations. They troll certain individuals mercilessly, they have nothing to contribute except their hysterical incompetence, insecurities and vitriol.
Plain Jane, has, just a few posts below, presented the readership with a most graphic example of her obsessive compulsive disorder. Thank you, whom ever you really are, for demonstrating your true mental health issues for all to see. Do seek help darlink as displaying your dirty washing in public can only be causing you further distress.
Thank you for just reinforcing that you're just Tim Dunn doing his usual "anonymous logins".
It's no surprise you and Tim both are so concerned about "anonymous logins" despite your own incessant usage of them. To include "Aerob13a" which is no one's name and also a constant "guest" name.
Troll elsewhere, Tim and Aero. Your obsession with me is funny, but just funny.
I use my own name.
Proof, if proof was ever needed that a bed in the lunatic asylum awaits …. we know who …. the poor demented soul.
- The Air Carrier Access Act applies to all flights within, to, and from the United States. It is immaterial that the flight originated in Paris.
- I don't see how online check-in is part of the problem. There would have been a special service request in the reservation both for the wheelchair and (if requested) assistance for her son. The type of check-in would only matter if they had not alerted American of...
- The Air Carrier Access Act applies to all flights within, to, and from the United States. It is immaterial that the flight originated in Paris.
- I don't see how online check-in is part of the problem. There would have been a special service request in the reservation both for the wheelchair and (if requested) assistance for her son. The type of check-in would only matter if they had not alerted American of their needs in advance.
I am disabled myself, and I am fortunate that I rarely have a problem. I only once or twice had problems with American, but they cleaned it up fast. And both incidents were in the peak of the pandemic, so nothing was normal.
The bigger problems have all been at Southwest and Alaska Airlines. In each instance, it was a function of IT problems. That's why I wonder if this was a BA/AA miscommunication.
American's SAC desk is invariably fantastic. I've been well looked-after whenever I've called or emailed in advance. They really do work hard to ensure that all the support is available when I need it.
The Plaintiff here is not pleading a case about “convenience” or “miscommunication." This is a federal civil rights case about systemic violations of U.S. disability law, many of them admitted in official written communication and on recorded lines by the Defendant, American Airlines, as well as evidence of patterns of violations captured in time-stamped screenshots, audio recordings.
You lack access to the details of this case to cast proper judgment and are making assumptions...
The Plaintiff here is not pleading a case about “convenience” or “miscommunication." This is a federal civil rights case about systemic violations of U.S. disability law, many of them admitted in official written communication and on recorded lines by the Defendant, American Airlines, as well as evidence of patterns of violations captured in time-stamped screenshots, audio recordings.
You lack access to the details of this case to cast proper judgment and are making assumptions and "wondering" about whether "miscommunications" happened. They did not.
Under 14 C.F.R. § 382.151, a Complaint Resolution Official (CRO) must be available immediately, at all times, to resolve disability-related issues. In Paris, American Airlines routed me to a voicemail promising a call back within 48 business hours, then admitted in writing to the U.S. DOT and on a recorded call that they never have a CRO immediately available. American Airlines' own outside counsel conceded it is “not uncommon” for them to violate this rule. That is not an IT glitch. That is standard practice in defiance of the law.
It is irresponsible, unhelpful, and potentially prejudicial for the public that One Mile At A Time has inaccurately focused its reporting on the online check-in issue. In reality, this case hinges almost entirely on other matters.
In Paris, when The Plaintiff attempted to escalate the check-in lockout as a disability-related issue, American Airlines refused to provide a Complaint Resolution Official (CRO) as mandated under 14 C.F.R. § 382.151. Instead, they directed the Plaintiff to an unmanned customer service voicemail box promising a callback within 48 business hours for “feedback.” This is a direct violation of federal law, which requires a live CRO to be immediately available at all times around the world. American Airlines later admitted in writing to the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Plaintiff, and again on a confirmed recorded call, that they never have a live CRO available to disabled American Airlines passengers, an admission that reveals this was not a one-off error, an IT problem, or a misunderstanding, but a standing, unlawful policy.
Upon arrival in Chicago, The Plaintiff's medically-necessary custom prescription power wheelchair, which had been explicitly tagged in Paris for return to the gate, was diverted to baggage claim, leaving her stranded on the aircraft for nearly an hour in pain, without access to medication or a restroom, while her autistic child became distressed and the crew mistreated her husband on the jet bridge. The Plaintiff was pressured by American Airlines to go through the airport terminal and Customs and Border Patrol in an unsafe, unsecured transport chair. However, once she firmly stated her severe medical needs and invoked her legal rights, the crew produced the wheelchair within ~40 minutes, proving it was always possible to comply with 14 C.F.R. § 382.125 but chose not to.
This federal civil rights lawsuit does not just seek monetary reward for the Plaintiff but also seeks injunctive relief under the ACAA, Section 504, and the Montreal Convention to stop these admitted, habitual violations, because no passenger with a disability should be treated this way again. These clarifications are needed due to inaccurate and unhelpful reporting on this case.
Ben sees a flaw your argument. Many of us do. The on line check in claim is frivolous at best (they can and will check you in by phone). It detracts from the merits of the rest of your claims. Further this is wrong forum for your extended legal arguments. AA is in the wrong here, but the tactic of browbeating those who fail to take up your cause makes you look petty at best...
Ben sees a flaw your argument. Many of us do. The on line check in claim is frivolous at best (they can and will check you in by phone). It detracts from the merits of the rest of your claims. Further this is wrong forum for your extended legal arguments. AA is in the wrong here, but the tactic of browbeating those who fail to take up your cause makes you look petty at best and obsessed at worst. Keep it simple. Passengers with disabilties were denied appropriate accomodation, denied access to the mandated on duty person with authority to fix issues and then denied timely and appropriate access to your personsl assistive device. All this without suitable apologies, politeness, nor acceptance of responsibility. You need about a dozen similar stories for your case to have class zction potential. Browbeating people is unlikely to result in any outcome you will find to be acceptable.
No one is being "browbeaten," sir. All comments made here, very carefully worded, are corrections to ensure that commentary on this flawed journalistic piece avoid unduly prejudicing a prospective jury pool in a case where the Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
You discuss "apologies, politeness, [and] acceptance of responsibility," but the Plaintiff is responsible for no such thing when she has...
No one is being "browbeaten," sir. All comments made here, very carefully worded, are corrections to ensure that commentary on this flawed journalistic piece avoid unduly prejudicing a prospective jury pool in a case where the Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
You discuss "apologies, politeness, [and] acceptance of responsibility," but the Plaintiff is responsible for no such thing when she has filed suit because she has faced illegal discrimination and is correcting inaccurate commentary on the case.
Again, the Plaintiff’s responses in this forum seek narrowly to correct public misstatements, speculation, and misreporting that could improperly influence jurors. This matter will not be litigated in the court of public opinion, but in federal court under the Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 41705, its implementing regulations at 14 C.F.R. Part 382, and relevant provisions of the Montreal Convention.
Your own comment contains a glaring factual error requiring correction: your assertion that “they can and will check you in by phone” is demonstrably wrong in this case. On June 11, 2025, while the Plaintiff was in Paris with her family, American Airlines refused entirely to check the Plaintiff online, by telephone, or by any other means whatsoever and instructed her to arrive even earlier than usual to Paris CDG on June 12 for her flight to check in in person, despite being informed of the disability-related urgency and the potential consequences of same-day for her disabilities pre-arranged accommodations.
Moreover, and very importantly, online check-in is absolutely not the central claim in this lawsuit. The operative claims include:
(1) denial of immediate access to a Complaint Resolution Official (“CRO”) in Paris when the Plaintiff attempted to escalate a disability-related issue, in direct violation of 14 C.F.R. § 382.151 and instead directing the Plaintiff to an unstaffed voicemail inbox promising a call back "within 48 business hours," with the airline later admitting in official written communication and on a recorded line that it never has a CRO immediately available; and
(2) unlawful diversion of the Plaintiff’s medically necessary, custom-configured power wheelchair, which had been explicitly tagged for return to the aircraft door, contrary to 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.127 and 382.129, with the airline later admitting in official written communication through its counsel that unlawful diversion of gate-checked custom power wheelchairs is "not unusual" for American Airlines.
These violations directly caused documented medical decompensation and constitute actionable harm under both federal regulation and the Montreal Convention (Articles 17 and 19). This case is neither frivolous, nor does it require any other similar cases to merit adjudication in federal court, as a single, well-documented instance of unlawful conduct is sufficient to sustain liability and obtain relief under the governing statutes and treaties. Furthermore, this is a single-plaintiff federal civil rights action. It is not a class action, and it will never seek to become a class action.
All of the Plaintiff’s public statements are supported by extensive evidence, including medical records, timestamped screenshots, audio recordings, and written and recorded admissions from American Airlines’ own agents and counsel, who not only acknowledged the violations in question. Respectfully, sir, you lack the access to the detailed evidence needed to determine if any claims in this case are "frivolous." That is for the judge in this case to decide.
Finally, the relief sought is not limited to compensatory damages; it includes injunctive relief (court-ordered policy changes designed to ensure compliance with federal law and prevent recurrence of these violations against other passengers with disabilities).
While this case will be tried in federal court and not the court of public opinion, accurate representation of this case for the record is absolutely necessary and appropriate to protect the integrity of the proceedings. All substantive arguments will be reserved for the proper venue.
Your civil rights were never violated.
From what I've seen AA staff go out of their way to help people with disabilities/elderly. I remember some years ago flying out PHL there were two open seats in first and the gate agent gave those seats to a fairly young girl taking her obviously very ill grand mother (as she told me after we landed) to her home town for her final days. The flight attendants and wheel chair attendants took painstaking measurers...
From what I've seen AA staff go out of their way to help people with disabilities/elderly. I remember some years ago flying out PHL there were two open seats in first and the gate agent gave those seats to a fairly young girl taking her obviously very ill grand mother (as she told me after we landed) to her home town for her final days. The flight attendants and wheel chair attendants took painstaking measurers to get the woman on and off the plane without causing her any more discomfort.
Sorry but the airlines can't guarantee online checkin will be available 100% of the time.
One is very encouraged by the extensive responses posted by KMRB. Furthermore, for putting the ignoramuses, who post under the anonymous logins, firmly in their places. It is a joy to behold.
Thank you KMRB for taking the time to enlighten the ignorant and those lacking compassion or any form of moral compass.
such interest in American ADA stories (and Newark slot stories) from a "Brit" and such interest in "anonymous logins" from someone that posted all day yesterday as a "guest" profile yet, along with Tim Dunn, is the only one that seems to care about your self-described "anonymous logins" while using an anonymous login himself.
You think anyone on this website is using their given birth name to post? Is Aerob13a on your British passport? Stop being such a loser.
I feel bad for the woman, in particular in her deplaning process, but one does have to wonder how a woman with such severe mobility and psychological issues and an autistic son takes a trip to paris (not a very ADA compliant city -- nor would it need to be as it's European) but somehow struggles to get on and off aircraft.
Of course anyone should take any trip they choose but it does...
I feel bad for the woman, in particular in her deplaning process, but one does have to wonder how a woman with such severe mobility and psychological issues and an autistic son takes a trip to paris (not a very ADA compliant city -- nor would it need to be as it's European) but somehow struggles to get on and off aircraft.
Of course anyone should take any trip they choose but it does seem unusual to choose such long flights to vacation with her self-described issues.
Perhaps trips to Europe aren't wise for someone with such severe mental anguish issues about online checkin and inability to exit ORD T5 absent a motorized chair? Putting her aside, it seems a little cruel to subject her autistic son to such long flights and a strange city for her own enjoyment. Her husband is a saint.
Nevertheless, there are legitimate complaints about gross, intentional violations of law. While these particular laws may protect only a very small number of people (and while one might even debate the wisdom of the laws), AA's penchant for violating them is part and parcel of their behavior in situations which affect the broader public, such as the UK261 compensation issue Ben wrote about last week.
I don't disagree about the law. American should follow it. Just noting how unusual it is to travel such long distances given self-described issues and an autistic son.
Fair enough, but I suppose it could also be characterized as heroic refusal to limit herself due to disability.
Elsewhere online she says they enjoy trips to Orlando. There is a Disneyland near there. There is also a Disneyland near Paris. So you would refuse her son a trip to Disneyland?
If this were a trip to Disneyland it would immediately reduce the amount of sympathy I had. But that's just me.
This very unfortunate and uninformed comment relies on a number of assumptions and ableist stereotypes rather than facts or schema.
The Plaintiff in this case is a highly experienced international traveler who has spent a significant time in France and other countries with her husband and son. This family’s travel, which, it is noted in this case, is carefully calibrated for safety and routine, is not solely for “enjoyment,” but is deeply integrated with their...
This very unfortunate and uninformed comment relies on a number of assumptions and ableist stereotypes rather than facts or schema.
The Plaintiff in this case is a highly experienced international traveler who has spent a significant time in France and other countries with her husband and son. This family’s travel, which, it is noted in this case, is carefully calibrated for safety and routine, is not solely for “enjoyment,” but is deeply integrated with their son’s bespoke Oxbridge-prep aligned Classical homeschooling curriculum, which includes immersive historical, cultural, and linguistic study. Far from being “cruel,” these global experiences include are joyful and are tailored to his strengths and interests, with structured supports in place, and have been profoundly beneficial for his education and social development, as documented by his child psychiatrist.
In fact, Paris is now remarkably accessible for this family, particularly following the city’s preparations for hosting the Paralympics, with wheelchair-accessible taxi services such as G7 at the ready, step-free entry and priority services at major museums and attractions, the use of UK-based Access Cards accepted, quality restaurants, and well-maintained urban parks that the Plaintiff’s son enjoys immensely. As a French language student who adores museum visits, historical sites, and green spaces, Plaintiff's son thrives during his regular visits to Paris.
Since Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida has seriously amended its policies toward disabled guests, this family has largely pivoted toward visiting Disneyland Paris instead, where stringent documentation of disabilities are accepted in order to grant disability accommodations and the family can still give their son a "Disney Parks" experience.
The commenter "Plane Jane" would do well to research modern European urban accessibility, the diversity of disabled families’ travel patterns, the role of individual accommodations, and the educational and social value of twice-exceptional homeschooling before making assumptions about what disabled travelers “should” or “should not” do or lecturing the Plaintiff from afar as a traveler, disabled woman, or parent or expressing pity for her, her husband, or son without proper context or evidence.
The Plaintiff’s travel - domestic and abroad - is conducted carefully, with full medical clearance and extensive logistical preparation, including the use of a custom prescription power wheelchair and pre-arranged assistance where legally mandated. Indeed, this is one of the core issues in this case, because the problems at issue in this lawsuit arose solely from American Airlines’ admitted and unlawful refusal to comply with U.S. disability law, not from any inability on the Plaintiff’s part to travel internationally.
To imply that people with disabilities, or parents of autistic children, should remain at home or refrain from international travel is to endorse a form of segregation that U.S. law explicitly rejects. This federal civil rights case exists precisely because the Plaintiff and her family have the right to access air travel safely and without unlawful barriers, whether the destination is Paris, Plano, or Peoria.
Enough. You are doing yourself no favors with all this. If AA goes to trial you will lose. Why? Because the jury will not like you. The more you post the greater the dislike.
Sir, would you mind please confirming or denying whether you are the same Michael Lissack who has been publicly accused in multiple reputable publications of engaging in an online harassment campaign against Dr. Timnit Gebru, Dr. Margaret Mitchell, and Dr. Emily M. Bender c. 2020-2021? For clarity, this is a factual and simple yes/no question based on widely reported allegations in outlets such as The Verge and WIRED, and is not a speculative accusation. A...
Sir, would you mind please confirming or denying whether you are the same Michael Lissack who has been publicly accused in multiple reputable publications of engaging in an online harassment campaign against Dr. Timnit Gebru, Dr. Margaret Mitchell, and Dr. Emily M. Bender c. 2020-2021? For clarity, this is a factual and simple yes/no question based on widely reported allegations in outlets such as The Verge and WIRED, and is not a speculative accusation. A simple confirmation or denial on your part would be helpful for readers to evaluate the context and credibility of your repeated personally disparaging remarks directed toward the Plaintiff in Case No. 1:25-cv-09158. Should you decline to respond, readers may be left to reasonably draw their own conclusions from your silence. A direct answer would resolve the matter far more effectively than continued ad hominem commentary against the Plaintiff. Thank you kindly.
If one has been disabled in their lives, an injury, an illness, they may understand the difficulties one has to face.
If they have never been disabled, they are blessed, but hopefully they have compassion for those who are. And be it be a CEO of a corporation, or flight attendants. Karma.
I am not an attorney, however, as a person who has a disability fully recognized under ADA and by the Air Carrier Access Act, to the best of my knowledge, advance online check-in is not a protected right under federal law either in ADA or the ACAA.
While I believe that the other complaints by the passenger are legitimate under the law, assuming that they happened as described, as to check in, she should...
I am not an attorney, however, as a person who has a disability fully recognized under ADA and by the Air Carrier Access Act, to the best of my knowledge, advance online check-in is not a protected right under federal law either in ADA or the ACAA.
While I believe that the other complaints by the passenger are legitimate under the law, assuming that they happened as described, as to check in, she should have checked into the flight by telephone. American Airlines provides check in for its flight by telephone by calling their customer service line. I know a number of AA passenger regulars who are disabled who forego online check-in for a variety of reasons and instead check-in via AA customer service by telephone. I don't know if AA normally charges for telephone check-in for regular passengers, however, the ACCA like ADA doesn't permit charging a disabled passenger for check-in by any means that they find necessary.
To be extremely clear, this lawsuit does NOT claim that online check-in is a federally protected “right.” Rather, it states that for the Plaintiff and her family, advance online check-in functions as a necessary and routinely-used accommodation given their specific disability-related needs. When American Airlines’ system locked the Plaintiff out of it while she was in Paris, she attempted to escalate the disability-related customer service issue to a Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO), which airlines are...
To be extremely clear, this lawsuit does NOT claim that online check-in is a federally protected “right.” Rather, it states that for the Plaintiff and her family, advance online check-in functions as a necessary and routinely-used accommodation given their specific disability-related needs. When American Airlines’ system locked the Plaintiff out of it while she was in Paris, she attempted to escalate the disability-related customer service issue to a Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO), which airlines are federally required under 14 C.F.R. § 382.151 to make immediately available to ALL passengers with disabilities, including during customer service interactions at international locations and airports.
Instead, the Plaintiff was directed to a telephone number that led to an unmanned customer service voicemail box referring to "feedback" about disability issues and promising a callback within 48 hours.
Later, both an American Airlines customer service agent and the airline’s retained counsel admitted in official written communications that this voicemail box was what AA considers its fulfillment of its mandated CRO access. This was confirmed again in August, when the Plaintiff repeatedly called the same line and consistently reached the same automated voicemail. The next day, a generic customer service agent (not a trained CRO) returned the call and stated on a line (confirmed to be recorded) that American Airlines never has immediate CRO access available to passengers.
Your claim refers to “federally mandated online check-in” and “advance online check-in is . . .an essential and protected right under federal law.” Those are poor choices of words if what you really meant was a protected right to have someone help with making the system available. Most people reading this and other air-travel blogs know that sometimes online check-in is available, and sometimes it is not.
Happy to clarify this issue, especially given the unhelpful and inaccurate reporting about this. The Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege that online check-in is a universally protected federal right. Rather, it asserts (correctly) that, in the Plaintiff’s circumstances as a non-ambulatory passenger with severe mobility and cardiac disabilities, traveling with a disabled dependent with complex neurodevelopmental needs, advance online check-in functions as a necessary accessibility accommodation. This is indeed explicitly tied to 14 C.F.R. §§...
Happy to clarify this issue, especially given the unhelpful and inaccurate reporting about this. The Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege that online check-in is a universally protected federal right. Rather, it asserts (correctly) that, in the Plaintiff’s circumstances as a non-ambulatory passenger with severe mobility and cardiac disabilities, traveling with a disabled dependent with complex neurodevelopmental needs, advance online check-in functions as a necessary accessibility accommodation. This is indeed explicitly tied to 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.43 and 382.45, which require that reservation and check-in systems to be accessible to all passengers with disabilities at all times. This does not, however, make "online check-in a federally mandated right."
The Complaint in this case alleges that, due to data coordination failures between American Airlines and its codeshare partner British Airways beyond this family's control, the Plaintiff was categorically denied access to this needed accommodation and was forced into same-day, in-person check-in. While the Plaintiff and her family are very experienced travelers, being told to simply arrive even earlier than usual to the airport on an already very long and chaotic travel day was not an acceptable response as this created increased physical and physiological burden, compressed timeframes, disrupted medical routines, and jeopardized pre-arranged disability accommodations. The Defendant refused repeatedly and in all ways to remedy this barrier, including by failing to provide a Complaint Resolution Officer as required under 14 C.F.R. § 382.151, a violation it has admitted in writing and on recorded calls by admitting that the airline never has a CRO available in real time to passengers.
These are the allegations in this case that concern the unlawful denial of mandated disability accommodations and systemic noncompliance with federal law before ever landing at O'Hare International Airport and the diversion of the custom prescription checked wheelchair. In no way does the Plaintiff seek with this case to create a new “federal right” to online check-in, nor does Plaintiff's Complaint misstate the governing law. Any suggestion otherwise materially misrepresents the Plaintiff’s pleadings and obscures the actual violations at issue in this case.
Thank you.
Except you could have checked in over the phone and YOU opted not to.
Shit happens. At least they didn't lose the wheelchair altogether.
Ridiculous claim. Checking in online is not a protected right under federal law. What is she talking about?
Reporting that the crux of the lawsuit is the online check-in is inaccurate reporting. As Plaintiff clearly communicated to this journalist in seeking a review of this article, the core claims involve violations of the Air Carrier Access Act (49 U.S.C. § 41705), DOT regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 382), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Montreal Convention. These include:
- Denial of immediate access to a federally required Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO) at...
Reporting that the crux of the lawsuit is the online check-in is inaccurate reporting. As Plaintiff clearly communicated to this journalist in seeking a review of this article, the core claims involve violations of the Air Carrier Access Act (49 U.S.C. § 41705), DOT regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 382), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Montreal Convention. These include:
- Denial of immediate access to a federally required Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO) at Paris CDG. American Airlines has admitted in official written communication and on recorded phone calls that will be submitted as evidence in this case that they do not staff CROs at CDG at all (meaning no passenger with a Disability ever has immediate access to an American Airlines CRO, despite this being a legal requirement).
- Failure to return her wheelchair to the aircraft door, leaving her stranded onboard for over an hour. American Airlines’ own legal counsel has admitted in official written communication that will be submitted in this case that this violation of federal law is “not uncommon,” underscoring a systemic practice rather than an isolated error.
- Resulting physical injury and medical destabilization during international carriage. These injuries, including cardiovascular instability and severe medical decompensation, as well as distress to Plaintiff's autistic son, are documented by specialist physicians at Northwestern Medicine and an independent child psychiatrist and form the basis for the Montreal Convention bodily injury claim.
Online check-in was perhaps the most minor of many failures that, taken together, form a broader pattern of statutory and treaty violations by an airline fined $50 million by the DOT for habitual Disability discrimination.
Happy to have clarified this.
Ridiculous response. There's a lot more to the complaint than the online check in issue.
Agree with the other comment about sticking to reviews and points/miles strategies. I am not sure how it cost her and her family more than time for checking in at the airport. About the delay, I understand if it took the airline too long to get her wheelchair to the plane, however, if they had alternative methods of getting her to baggage claim such as the aisle chair and a wheelchair, then I think they...
Agree with the other comment about sticking to reviews and points/miles strategies. I am not sure how it cost her and her family more than time for checking in at the airport. About the delay, I understand if it took the airline too long to get her wheelchair to the plane, however, if they had alternative methods of getting her to baggage claim such as the aisle chair and a wheelchair, then I think they did what they were suppsoed to. While sometimes the wheelchair comes to the plane, many times it goes to baggage claim. I think the details for this case matter a lot because in some way she sounds entitled.
Well good thing you aren't in charge because what you describe is exactly the airline NOT doing what it is supposed to do, if you consider complying with the actual law to be what they are supposed to do.
“I am not sure…”
“I understand if…”
“I think they…”
“I think the…”
You do a lot of thinking and yakking but apparently don’t know how to read. Have somebody read it to you before you comment next time.
The Plaintiff in this case had her own custom prescription power wheelchair explicitly tagged for immediate return to the door of the aircraft. This wheelchair is medically necessary for the Plaintiff due to her specific severe neuromuscular and cardiac disabilities. An ordinary airport transport chair is not medically suitable or safe for this Plaintiff as it lacks a seatbelt and other stabilizing features and is propelled by a stranger. Plaintiff would have been in this...
The Plaintiff in this case had her own custom prescription power wheelchair explicitly tagged for immediate return to the door of the aircraft. This wheelchair is medically necessary for the Plaintiff due to her specific severe neuromuscular and cardiac disabilities. An ordinary airport transport chair is not medically suitable or safe for this Plaintiff as it lacks a seatbelt and other stabilizing features and is propelled by a stranger. Plaintiff would have been in this chair for an indeterminate amount of time as her custom prescription power wheelchair had been diverted to baggage claim on the other side of Customs and Border Patrol in Terminal 5 of O'Hare International Airport.
Airlines are subject to ACAA Regulation 14 C.F.R. § 382.125(a), which requires that they return wheelchairs to the door of the aircraft unless doing so is unsafe or impossible. Once Plaintiff in this case asserted that her wheelchair had been tagged for return by American Airlines and cited the ACAA regulation, the airline returned her wheelchair (after a 40 minute delay), proving it was possible -- just inconvenient.
You are correct that the details matter.
I could infer from the first post that armies of people who had first hand knowledge of the case were all out for you. Maybe, this is a good reminder to stick with reviews, even though I know this kind of articles generate a lot of traffic
If you want to write about a lawsuit, you owe it to your readers to at least read the original document. It’s only ten pages. What happened here is that something was knocked off quickly based on what other bloggers had written. I can’t find any that relied on a primary source, but maybe there was one.
This (and all other blogs) often publish these "engagement" articles being "A user on TikTok is claiming. . ." which gives an idea about how much concern they have for accurately reporting these situations.
Actually there was a press release. Brickl incorrectly assumed the media would be on her side. She has made that semi impossible.
I fully agree with passenger
Ben, check your sources . . . AA might start to phase in XLRs on the transcon routes in the first weekend of June 2026. With initial emphasis on the LA route.
There's no question that airlines could/should create a more accessible experience — especially for travelers with limited mobility — but the claim that online check-in is a federally protected right is so fantastical that it's hard to take the rest of the claim seriously.
The long, Shakespearean word salads in both the original complaint and these comments do no favors.
Is online checkin actually a legal right?
Its not a legal right for the general public afaik, but I'm not sure if there a specifics situations where there is.
My 91 year old mother and I experienced this same kind of blatant disregard for those with wheelchairs at the hands of American. We landed at Calgary from Chicago were denied access to my mothers personal chair, told lies that the chair was not on board ( despite both an email from AA confirming it was on board and my personally watching it being boarded). When AA insisted we deplane without the chair we refused....
My 91 year old mother and I experienced this same kind of blatant disregard for those with wheelchairs at the hands of American. We landed at Calgary from Chicago were denied access to my mothers personal chair, told lies that the chair was not on board ( despite both an email from AA confirming it was on board and my personally watching it being boarded). When AA insisted we deplane without the chair we refused. An hour passed with no chair and being told no CRO (its Sunday). The next flight crew showed up and the original pilot threatened to call the police unless we deplaned. I replied please do as I will be pressing charges of grand theft and kidnapping (taking my mother any where without her wheelchair is against her will and thus kidnapping). When the policeman started explaining to both pilotd that the plane would need to be impounded as evidence suddenly ... yes a miracle ... my mothers wheelchair ( which they falsely claimed never was on the plane) was on the jetway. I agreed to not press charges and the next flight left about 2 hrs late. I will never willingly fly American again. Horrible corporate level disdain for the disabled.
That all said the claim re online checkin is way over the top. Even those who get hurt should stick to what is reasonable.
@ Michael Lissack -- Oh my, that sounds horrible. May I ask how long ago this was?
Two years ago. I have only flown AA once since when a client insisted. The gibberish from AA legal was ridiculous but that ended when i copied them on the police report.
Wow that’s terrible!
I love a story where the ones in the wrong end up threatening to call the police and when they discover their wanton disregard they end up realising they were fully in the wrong.
Glad the next flight was late departing. AA should learn a lesson.
Clearly they didn't.
Story is about a disabled person who is angry. That happens frequently when people in wheelchairs are ignored or discriminated against. If you had wanted to attack her for the way she deals with her anger, that’s fine. You don’t cover disability travel, that’s obvious from how you ignored the October story about American Airlines being fined $50 million. But you should not have attacked her for being greedy.
Other commenters attacked her for...
Story is about a disabled person who is angry. That happens frequently when people in wheelchairs are ignored or discriminated against. If you had wanted to attack her for the way she deals with her anger, that’s fine. You don’t cover disability travel, that’s obvious from how you ignored the October story about American Airlines being fined $50 million. But you should not have attacked her for being greedy.
Other commenters attacked her for relying on a lawyer looking for money, when she’s representing herself. You still leave out that essential fact.
There are still stories elsewhere claiming that she is asking for $216K. Just because that’s the maximum allowed under the Montreal Convention, doesn’t mean that number can be found anywhere in her claim.
Her lawsuit also asks for an injunction against American Airlines to prohibit what happened to her from happening to someone else. And, for third-party monitoring to make sure this happens. That would cost American Airlines a lot of money, in addition to the $50 million penalty already paid, but it doesn’t put any money in her purse. You fail to mention this. It would be better to attack her for being unrealistic, but at least let readers know what she wants.
How can you write that you want to “accurately reflect the claims made,” then totally ignore the relief requested?
I am unaware of any Chicago district court. There is a federal court called the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
I do not like AA. That said, I do not believe there is a right to online check-in.
I have not reviewed the text of the Montreal Convention but I am skeptical whether the delay of the wheelchair delivery constitutes an "accident". I do not believe there was an injury....
I am unaware of any Chicago district court. There is a federal court called the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
I do not like AA. That said, I do not believe there is a right to online check-in.
I have not reviewed the text of the Montreal Convention but I am skeptical whether the delay of the wheelchair delivery constitutes an "accident". I do not believe there was an injury. I believe that psychiatry injury claims alone are insufficient under the Montreal Convention unless there is an accompanying physical injury.
My conclusion is that the plaintiff likely does not have a valid claim for compensation. From a public relations standpoint and AA's tendency to be cheap, $75 seems like typical AA behavior but is sufficient.
The fact of life is that long distance travel with two cripples, one in a wheelchair and another with autism is very difficult if there is only one relative supervising.
Her claim is not only for “emotional distress.” It is for the “neurological worsening and cardiovascular instability” that it caused. Are you a medical expert?
How does staying at her seat for an additional amount of time cause neurological damage and cardiovascular instability? How is that different from a flight delay?
Your comparison of the bodily harm that occurred in this case to a simple “flight delay” is medically and legally inaccurate and requires a detailed response. The harm that occurred when American Airlines unlawfully diverted Plaintiff's wheelchair to baggage claim occurred after landing at O'Hare International Airport when all other passengers had been deplaned. Furthermore, in an ordinary delay, a passenger is inconvenienced and retains mobility, may ambulate, stretch, and access necessary medical devices. In...
Your comparison of the bodily harm that occurred in this case to a simple “flight delay” is medically and legally inaccurate and requires a detailed response. The harm that occurred when American Airlines unlawfully diverted Plaintiff's wheelchair to baggage claim occurred after landing at O'Hare International Airport when all other passengers had been deplaned. Furthermore, in an ordinary delay, a passenger is inconvenienced and retains mobility, may ambulate, stretch, and access necessary medical devices. In this case, Plaintiff was unlawfully deprived of her custom prescription power wheelchair, which had been explicitly tagged for return to the door of the aircraft upon landing, and which also functions as a positioning and pressure-management system prescribed to prevent circulatory collapse, autonomic destabilization, and joint strain.
By contrast, this case occurred after a prolonged transatlantic flight, and during the nearly one-hour delay, Plaintiff had her stressed autistic son beside her, was unable to access a bathroom and experienced urinary incontinence into an adult diaper, was unable to access PRN medication as her husband had already exited the aircraft to wait for the wheelchair on the jet bridge (where he was harassed by American Airlines crew and pressured to leave without the wheelchair).
American Airlines claimed that they had diverted Plaintiff's wheelchair due to its weight and attempted to pressure Plaintiff to travel through the entirety of O'Hare's Terminal 5 and Customs and Border Patrol in a medically unsafe transport chair without a seatbelt, pushed by a stranger, until she asserted her legal rights, at which time they brought her wheelchair back, proving it was possible all along.
This case was not a benign inconvenience; it was a medically hazardous condition known to precipitate syncope, arrhythmia, and neurological flare-ups in patients with Plaintiff’s profile. Plaintiff made this known to American Airlines before, during, and after the event.
Under the Air Carrier Access Act (14 C.F.R. § 382.125) and applicable DOT guidance, carriers must return mobility devices to the aircraft door for non-ambulatory passengers “as close as possible to the door of the aircraft” unless doing so is physically impossible. This requirement exists precisely because the medical consequences of delay are foreseeable and preventable. The defendant’s failure to comply with this mandate, coupled with its denial of access to a Complaint Resolution Officer, constitutes not only a procedural violation but also a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s physical harm.
For these reasons, the harm alleged is materially different from the inconvenience of a delayed deplaning and is fully actionable under federal disability law.
With all due respect, this comment contains multiple factual and legal inaccuracies and warrants a detailed response.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is indeed a district court. It is one of the United States District Courts established under Article III of the Constitution. The reference to a “Chicago district court” in any media or conversation is merely colloquial shorthand, not a separate legal entity, and is entirely correct in common...
With all due respect, this comment contains multiple factual and legal inaccuracies and warrants a detailed response.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is indeed a district court. It is one of the United States District Courts established under Article III of the Constitution. The reference to a “Chicago district court” in any media or conversation is merely colloquial shorthand, not a separate legal entity, and is entirely correct in common usage.
Regarding the right to online check-in as a disability accommodation: while there is no general “right” to online check-in for all passengers, the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and its implementing regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 382) do strictly impose a duty on carriers to provide equivalent facilitation and reasonable modifications for passengers with disabilities. For passengers with severe mobility impairments and autism, such as Plaintiff and her son, the ability to check in online is not a convenience, but rather a disability accommodation that minimizes physical exertion, prevents unnecessary medical risk, and avoids prolonged exposure to inaccessible or stressful environments. Plaintiff has extensive evidence for this, including medical records. When an air carrier blocks such access due to its own system errors or codeshare inconsistencies, as happened in this case, and refuses to remedy that barrier, it constitutes unlawful denial of reasonable accommodation under the ACAA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The scope of the Montreal Convention governs international carriage by air and provides compensation for “accidents” that cause bodily injury. However, it is critical to note that this particular lawsuit is not pled solely under the Montreal Convention. It is instead mainly brought under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ACAA, both of which create independent rights and remedies for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. The “accident” standard under Montreal is therefore not dispositive here.
Contrary to the your assertion in your comment, Plaintiff's claims do include both physical and emotional harm. Being forcibly separated from a prescribed custom prescription power wheelchair for an extended period does result in measurable physical injury, including exacerbation of underlying conditions, circulatory strain, neuromuscular decompensation, and increased fall risk, as well as aggravation of preexisting diagnosed autoimmune disorders. These are not speculative injuries and were documented by physicians ex post facto. These disabilities were also noted to American Airlines before the flight and in real time. Moreover, under the ACAA and § 504, denial of required accommodations and violation of mandated procedures (such as access to a Complaint Resolution Officer) constitute actionable harm irrespective of Montreal’s bodily injury requirement.
Notably, the suggestion that $75 is “sufficient” ignores both statutory remedies and precedent. The matter was never legally settled and remains fully open to litigation as Plaintiff never signed any formal settlement. Federal law provides for compensatory damages for proven physical and emotional harm caused by disability discrimination in air transportation. The DOT has repeatedly held that denial of CRO access, mishandling of mobility devices, and failure to return such devices to the aircraft door are serious violations warranting enforcement and compensation.
Finally, regarding your characterization of the plaintiff’s family as “two cripples,” it must be noted that your language is deliberately rude, inaccurate, and discriminatory. The proper legal terms are “individuals with disabilities” or “disabled persons” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 705(20). The implication that the presence of multiple disabled travelers renders the unlawful bodily harm acceptable is legally irrelevant; air carriers are required to accommodate each disabled passenger’s needs without diminution of rights due to the presence of others.
For these reasons, "derek," the assertion that the plaintiff “likely does not have a valid claim” is unsupported by applicable law, fact, or the actual pleadings in this matter. Thank you.
The US DoT has a rule about timely delivery of wheelchairs. AA ignored the rule. If they did so out of ignorance (which seems likely) then indeed it was an "accident." If a court rules it was on purpose the consequences could be quite severe.
The rule in question is 14 C.F.R. § 382.125(a), which requires airlines to return a passenger’s wheelchair to the aircraft door unless it’s physically impossible or violates safety regulations. In this particular case, the Plaintiff's wheelchair had been explicitly tagged for return to the door of the aircraft and that tag was visible to the crew. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's spouse was on the jet bridge pleading with the crew to return the wheelchair and explaining...
The rule in question is 14 C.F.R. § 382.125(a), which requires airlines to return a passenger’s wheelchair to the aircraft door unless it’s physically impossible or violates safety regulations. In this particular case, the Plaintiff's wheelchair had been explicitly tagged for return to the door of the aircraft and that tag was visible to the crew. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's spouse was on the jet bridge pleading with the crew to return the wheelchair and explaining the Plaintiff's medical need for it while being harassed. Onboard the aircraft, Plaintiff was compelled to "educate" undertrained flight attendants who insisted that, in their experience, diversions of custom prescription wheelchairs to baggage claim were common practice, despite the law. Further, American Airlines’ own retained counsel admitted in writing that diverting "heavy" wheelchairs to baggage claim -- rather than the aircraft door as required -- is “not uncommon” in their operations.
American Airlines' direct competitor at O'Hare, United Airlines, does not have such a habit.
This is not ignorance of the law; it’s an acknowledgment that American Airlines is aware of the requirement and routinely fails to follow it.
Completely realizing the extreme sensitivity of the situation, it would be interesting to get a hint on the type and tone of the communication you received from the people involved..
Different US airport, and different domestic airline but I saw a similar excruciating scene play out. The traveler had no mobility and needed a type of powered wheelchair that was clearly custom-build for their body shape and needs. But, the motorized chair was sent to baggage claim and the inbound passenger was stuck on the plane for almost an hour while a supervisor went to the central baggage claim and had it loaded onto a...
Different US airport, and different domestic airline but I saw a similar excruciating scene play out. The traveler had no mobility and needed a type of powered wheelchair that was clearly custom-build for their body shape and needs. But, the motorized chair was sent to baggage claim and the inbound passenger was stuck on the plane for almost an hour while a supervisor went to the central baggage claim and had it loaded onto a cart then to be delivered back to the gate.
The primary offense was of course to the passenger and their family. But, as a side note a couple hundred of us were delayed outbound by more than an hour while the airline fixed their error.
It was just a bad outcome for all involved.
While I understand the claim about the wheelchair situation, and perhaps the lack of problem solving initiatives, my question is who made the reservations? Was it through the 800 number, travel agency, a relative, or one of the passengers? Because that may determine who selected the name titles.
The reservation was made directly by Plaintiff's husband through British Airways, American Airlines' codeshare partner. We flew into LHR on British Airways and out of CDG on American Airlines. British Airways requires that passengers use honorifics ("Mstr," "Miss") when booking, but American doesn't recognize them. This internal confusion led to a data error between the airlines the night before the flight, which led to the denial of online check-in (not a federally-protected right, but a...
The reservation was made directly by Plaintiff's husband through British Airways, American Airlines' codeshare partner. We flew into LHR on British Airways and out of CDG on American Airlines. British Airways requires that passengers use honorifics ("Mstr," "Miss") when booking, but American doesn't recognize them. This internal confusion led to a data error between the airlines the night before the flight, which led to the denial of online check-in (not a federally-protected right, but a needed disability accommodation). Plaintiff's and her husband received conflicting reports as to whether this denial of online check-in. When Plaintiff attempted to escalate this issue, Plaintiff was denied immediate access to a CRO, access to which absolutely *is* a mandated right. Happy to clarify.
Sounds like you too got threatened with a lawsuit. Only proving your psychotic litigant assertion
Calling the plaintiff in an active federal civil rights lawsuit “psychotic” for attempting to get all of the facts straight in coverage of the case says more about your grasp of the law than it does about anyone or anything else. Courtrooms run on truth, statutes, and evidence -- not playground insults. I'm grateful to Ben Schlappig for having journalistic integrity.
Well said! Frankly, I'm amazed at the number of asinine comments posted by people who have absolutely no understanding of the law and no empathy for the traveler involved. It seems to me empathy is something often expected but rarely offered by the current generation.
No knowledge of the law, no empathy. But yet they make comments on issues they have no idea about like ignorant fools do… Reminds me of their cult leader that they worship. Karma, where are you?