Summary
This memorandum opinion addresses United Airlines’ partial motion to dismiss claims arising from the alleged denial of boarding and removal of four passengers from Baltimore/Washington International Airport. The court considers whether the plaintiffs’ negligence claim is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act and whether the complaint adequately alleges a recoverable injury. The motion is granted with leave to amend, although the provided text ends before the full disposition is stated.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs stated a negligence claim under Maryland law based on United's alleged racial discrimination, false reports to police, denial of reboarding, and removal from the airport.
- Whether the plaintiffs adequately pleaded compensable emotional-distress damages for negligence under Maryland law.
- Whether the negligence claim was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.
Holdings
- The negligence claim was inadequately pleaded because the conduct alleged as the breach—intentional discrimination, intentional denial of reboarding, intentional reports to law enforcement, and intentional removal from the airport—was intentional conduct with intended consequences rather than negligent conduct.
- Kim adequately alleged a physical manifestation of emotional distress by alleging that she was in tears, but Chiao, Parvanova, and Simmons did not adequately plead physical manifestations of emotional distress. Their negligence claims were therefore dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.
- The court declined to decide ADA preemption because dismissal was warranted on other grounds.
Key quotations
“The conduct alleged by plaintiffs under the guise of negligence was clearly intentional conduct with intended consequences.” (Section III.A.2)
“Although the plaintiffs will be required to prove that their emotional injuries are accompanied by physical injuries that are capable of objective determination, the specifics of such objective manifestations have ‘more to do with proving, rather than defining, this kind of injury.’” (Section III.A.3)
Factual background
Plaintiffs were coworkers traveling from Las Vegas to the Washington, D.C., area when their flight was diverted to Baltimore/Washington International Airport because of weather. After a prolonged delay on the tarmac, United allegedly prevented Kim from reboarding after a flight attendant reported that an Asian female passenger had assaulted her; the other plaintiffs allegedly sought clarification and were also denied reboarding. Plaintiffs alleged that United personnel requested armed police officers to escort all four plaintiffs from the airport and that the plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, embarrassment, and humiliation.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs initially filed suit on March 5, 2025, and filed an amended complaint on June 12, 2025. The amended complaint asserted racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence/breach of duty, and defamation. Plaintiffs withdrew the IIED claim. The district court granted United's partial motion to dismiss the negligence claim without prejudice and with leave to amend, while declining to reach ADA preemption.