page counter OST-2009-0126 - Williams, Woodbury and Young v. AirTran, American, Continental, Delta, United and US Airways - Second Hand Tobacco Smoke in Terminals

Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office

Updated: Friday, March 5, 2010 5:49 AM


OST-2009-0126 - Williams, Woodbury and Young v. AirTran, American, Continental, Delta, United and US Airways - Second Hand Tobacco Smoke in Terminals


OST-2000-7891 - Williams and Young v. Delta Air Lines
OST-2006-25704 - Petition for Meaningful Access to Airports for Persons with Disabilities Cause or Exacerbated by Second Hand Tobacco Smoke


Billy Williams, Diane Woodbury and Patricia Young v. AirTran Airways, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Air Lines and US Airways

OST-2009-0126

May 18, 2009

Petition to Revoke Air Carrier Certificates

The petitioners allege that the air carriers have demonstrated deliberate indifference to the actions of their contractors for disability access at airports in the United States. As evidence, petitioners submit the letter that the City of Phoenix sent to Ms. Betty Campbell, an individual with a breathing disability.

On April 10, 2009, Woodbury was on AirTrans Flight No. 65 from Fort Lauderdale International to Denver International Airport with a stop at ATL. Woodbury had an asthma attack as a result of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke at ATL and she had to ride the train in circles while waiting for her connecting flight to depart to DEN in order to avoid further exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

By: Billy Williams



June 2, 2009

Consolidated Answer of AirTran, American, Continental, Delta, United and US Airways

This Petition is at least the fifth time that Billy Williams and Patricia Young have brought the same matter before the Department. Their first two complaints were dismissed (Docket 49692 (v. American), dismissed by Order 1994-12-37 and OST-2000-7891 (v. Delta), dismissed by Order 2001-3-9.), and the other two were apparently deemed so inconsequential that the Department took no action. In addition, as shown by the attachments to the latest Petition, the same parties have also raised the same issue before the U.S. Department of Labor, which, like DOT, rejected their claims.

There is no merit to the Petition. In particular, there has been no showing that the Respondents have discriminated against the Petitioners in violation of the Air Carrier Access Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is nothing new in this successive re-argument of the same claims by the same parties that adds any merit or gives rise to any cause for enforcement action against the Respondents.

The current pleading is nothing more than a successive petition for reconsideration of the Department’s prior dismissals – which is expressly barred by the Departments’ Rules of Practice. Moreover, the Petitioners have previously admitted that their submissions are merely intended to draw attention to their anti-smoking campaign, harass air carriers by “involv[ing] a lot of lawyers” and provide a public soapbox to “explain the BIG PICTURE [to air carriers] and the Department.” These tactics are an abuse of the Department’s procedures.

Counsel: Richard Magurno for AirTran / Carl Nelson for American / Thomas Bolling for Continental / Sascha Van der Bellen for Delta / Ricks Frazier for United / Howard Kass for US Airways



July 6, 2009

Re: Comments of Rossie Judd

  • Public Accommodations Cannot be Bifurcated
  • Smoking Policies and Smoking Bans Under the ADA
  • Deference to Public Health Officials
  • Effects of Disabilities on Others
  • Architectural Barriers Regulations
  • Meaningful Access
  • Disparate Treatment/Disparate Impact Discrimination

By: Rossie Judd



August 25, 2009

Re: Complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Council

This letter is to inform you that I will file a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Council alleging discrimination against the breathing disabled by the United States if the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Transportation do not process my complaints alleging discrimination against the breathing disabled in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

By: Bill Williams


Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office