Roy Goldberg and Steven Richman secure dismissal for JetBlue Airways in federal court discrimination case

Roy Goldberg and Steven Richman recently obtained an order to dismiss claims of discrimination filed by an Orthodox Jewish family after they were removed from a JetBlue flight on Jan. 23, 2022, for non-compliance with the COVID-19 federal mask mandate.

The family asserted violations of religious discrimination, anti-discrimination laws, common law negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming that the mask issues were a pretext for discrimination.

Incident background

According to the Eastern District of New York’s Sept. 25 opinion, before boarding their flight, the family wrapped tefillin, put on yarmulkes, and prayed in Hebrew in full view of the JetBlue flight crew, which, according to the plaintiffs, gave them “dirty looks” for their pre-boarding conduct.

They continued to pray after taking their seats on the plane when one of the children pulled his mask down. Because of the passengers’ lack of compliance with the mandate, the flight crew removed the entire family from the flight.

The family filed suit on March 31, 2024, and JetBlue fully briefed its motion to dismiss on Dec. 12, 2024.

Argument to dismiss

Goldberg and Richman argued that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted and time-barred by the Montreal Convention, the Airline Deregulation Act, and the Federal Aviation Act. They argued that the alleged injury occurred onboard an international carriage, and therefore it would fall under the scope of the Montreal Convention. With the Montreal Convention serving as the exclusive remedy for the incident, it would preempt the federal and state law claims. Importantly, the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations in the Montreal Convention.

The plaintiffs countered this by arguing that the JetBlue flight crew formed their alleged discriminatory animus in the boarding area inside the airport, prior to walking on the plane. The court, however, ruled that argument to be “untenable.”

“The alleged conduct that occurred at the gate…would not alone form the basis of any legal claim of discrimination, arising in tort, or otherwise, and thus could not reasonably be construed as the ‘injury-causing event’ for purposes of this inquiry,” the court wrote in its opinion.

“To state the obvious: had the (family) not been removed from the airplane, there would be no injury and no claim,” The court added. “Plaintiffs fail to cite any legal authority for their position that the court should evaluate preemption at the time the alleged discriminatory animus is formed, rather than when a defendant acts on that animus, causing injury.”

Goldberg is pleased with the ruling and observed that the case provides a good warning against over-reliance on AI for legal research.

“When our motion to dismiss was filed, if one asked AI whether the international transportation was subject to the Montreal Convention, AI would have stated that Aruba – the destination for the flight – is not technically a signatory,” Goldberg said. “However, the reality is that Aruba is part of the greater Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is an important signatory to the Montreal Convention. So one point for actual knowledge and zero for AI.”

Goldberg added: “The federal district court also noted that an amended complaint under the Montreal Convention would be time-barred due to a two-year statute of limitations, so we’re pleased to have this dismissed in its entirety.”