Brackett v. American Airlines Group Inc.

Background

Bivett Brackett sued American Airlines Group Inc. after an August 5, 2019 incident involving an attempted flight from Miami, Florida, to San Francisco, California. The amended complaint alleged that gate agents yelled at and intimidated Brackett, blocked her from reaching the gate, and prevented her from boarding. It also alleged that Caucasian and Hispanic passengers boarded the same flight with luggage the same size as Brackett’s.

Brackett asserted three claims: breach of contract, negligence under California Civil Code section 1714, and racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. section 1981. American Airlines moved to dismiss the amended complaint and to strike portions of it. The court accepted the amended complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion.

Negligence claim

The negligence claim alleged that American Airlines failed to reasonably manage and control its employees. The court had previously dismissed the claim because Brackett had not provided authority supporting the application of California negligence law to events in Florida. In the amended complaint and her opposition, Brackett argued that California law applied because the contract was performed and completed in San Francisco.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that, under California law, the relevant question for extraterritorial application is whether the conduct giving rise to liability occurred in California. The amended complaint did not allege facts showing that the relevant supervision or hiring conduct occurred in California, and Brackett provided no basis for applying California negligence law to the Florida events.

The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the negligence claim. Because Brackett had already been given two opportunities to address the problem, the court found that another amendment would be futile and dismissed the claim without leave to amend.

Breach-of-contract claim

The amended complaint did not identify which state’s contract law applied, although Brackett’s opposition appeared to rely on California law. The court concluded that the claim failed under California law for two independent reasons. First, Brackett had not justified applying California law to conduct that allegedly occurred in Miami, Florida. Second, she did not identify a specific provision of American Airlines’ Conditions of Carriage that the airline allegedly breached.

The amended complaint referred to provisions stating that passengers are usually permitted a free cabin-baggage allowance, which may differ depending on the airline, class, route, or aircraft type, and that airline agents lack authority to alter or waive the contract. The court found that these provisions were conditional and did not require American Airlines to allow Brackett to bring a carry-on bag onto the plane. The court also rejected the argument that an alleged civil-rights violation automatically established a breach of contract.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the breach-of-contract claim. Because Brackett had repeatedly failed to explain which contractual term American Airlines breached, the court found that further amendment would be futile and dismissed the claim without leave to amend.

Section 1981 claim

Section 1981 protects the right to make and enforce contracts and to receive the full benefits and privileges of contractual relationships without intentional racial discrimination. The court explained that Brackett had to plausibly allege intentional discrimination based on race and that, without her race, she would not have lost a legally protected contractual right.

The court found Brackett’s allegations sufficient at the pleading stage. She alleged that American Airlines’ gate agents prevented her from boarding while allowing Caucasian and Hispanic passengers to board the same flight with luggage the same size as hers. Accepting those allegations as true, the court held that she had thinly but plausibly alleged that, because of her race, she was denied the full benefits and privileges of her contract with American Airlines.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 1981 claim.

Motion to strike

American Airlines moved to strike paragraphs 5 through 18 of the amended complaint. Those paragraphs discussed a travel advisory issued by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People describing a pattern of incidents reported by African-American passengers involving American Airlines. Brackett argued that the allegations were relevant to showing that American Airlines did not act by mistake and could support punitive damages.

The court denied the motion to strike. It found that the relevance of the allegations was at least uncertain, that American Airlines had not shown prejudice from allegations based on publicly available facts, and that striking them would not streamline the case. The court also denied the request to strike the prayer for punitive damages, explaining that a motion to strike was not a proper way to test the sufficiency or substantive merit of that request.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted in part and denied in part American Airlines’ motion to dismiss and strike. The negligence and breach-of-contract claims were dismissed without leave to amend. The motion to dismiss the Section 1981 claim was denied, and the motion to strike was denied. The court set a telephonic case-management conference and required the parties to submit an updated joint case-management statement.