Brannon v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

Background

Ralph Brannon, an attorney representing himself, sued Delta Airlines, Inc., flight attendants Rebecca Bernardin and Corie Nichole Posey, and the Port Authority of the State of New York and New Jersey. The case arose from an August 11, 2016 flight from Orlando, Florida, to New York. Brannon traveled using a Delta employee’s “Buddy Pass,” which made him a non-revenue passenger subject to Delta’s pass-travel conduct rules.

According to the record described by the court, flight attendants interacted with Brannon during the flight after disagreements about drinks and his comments to other passengers. The flight crew notified the captain, who arranged for a Delta supervisor and police to meet the plane after landing. Port Authority officers entered the plane, asked Brannon to leave so they could speak with him in the terminal, interviewed him for about 15 to 20 minutes, and allowed him to leave without arrest. The record showed that the officers did not handcuff, touch, threaten, or yell at Brannon.

Brannon alleged racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state-law claims for discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Delta defendants and the Port Authority separately moved for summary judgment, which is a ruling entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute requiring a trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Federal Claims Against the Delta Defendants

The court granted the Delta defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Section 1981 claim. It held that Brannon offered no direct or circumstantial evidence that the flight attendants intentionally discriminated against him because of race. The court found that his assertions were based on speculation, that he identified no specific racist statements by the flight attendants, and that he did not show that similarly situated passengers of another race received better treatment.

The court also ruled that, even assuming Brannon could establish an initial discrimination case, the Delta defendants gave a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their actions: Brannon’s allegedly unruly and disruptive behavior while traveling under the Buddy Pass rules. The court found that Brannon did not provide evidence showing that reason was a pretext, meaning a false explanation masking discrimination.

The court separately granted summary judgment on Brannon’s Title VI claim. It concluded that he had not shown intentional racial discrimination for the reasons discussed with the Section 1981 claim. It also held that he had not established the required connection between the alleged discrimination and a federally funded program or activity, and that he was unaware of any federal funding received by Delta that could satisfy that requirement.

Excessive-Force Claim Against the Port Authority

The court granted the Port Authority’s motion for summary judgment on Brannon’s Section 1983 excessive-force claim. Because the Port Authority was treated as a municipality for this claim, Brannon had to show that an official policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that he identified no such policy or custom and testified that he was unaware of any Port Authority custom of using excessive force in response to airline calls.

The court further held that the claim failed even without that municipal-liability requirement. Excessive-force claims involving a seizure are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard. The court found no evidence that the officers acted unreasonably or used excessive force. Brannon voluntarily left the plane, was not touched or handcuffed, did not feel restrained or intimidated, and described the officers as polite, respectful, and cordial. The court concluded that the record showed no force had been used against him.

State Claims and Other Matters

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brannon’s remaining state-law claims after granting summary judgment on all federal claims. The opinion also denied Brannon’s request for an order directing the Port Authority to provide information about alleged witness statements, explaining that the federal Freedom of Information Act applies to the federal government rather than state or municipal agencies.

The court disregarded Brannon’s later letters seeking to amend or supplement his filings because they did not raise new issues material to the pending motions. In its conclusion, the court stated that the defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and terminate the motions, and required Delta and the Port Authority to jointly update the court about the status of the Port Authority’s cross-claim against Delta.