Air Carrier Access Act does not provide private right of action

Law Reporter, Mar 2003

AVIATION

Love v. Delta Air Lines, 310 F. 3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2002).

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. sec 41705, which prohibits air carriers from discriminating against individuals with disabilities, does not create a private right of action in federal court.

Here, Love, who uses a wheelchair, was a passenger on Delta Air Lines. Love notified the airline in advance of her flight that she had special needs. However, when Love became ill aboard the flight, she found that there was no accessible call button to page the flight attendant. Love had to be carried to the rest room by her son.

Love filed suit against Delta under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. secs 12101 et seq., and the ACAA, alleging that it discriminated against her by not providing equal access to its facilities to persons with disabilities. The trial court held that the relevant portion of the ADA expressly excludes aircraft from its coverage, and the ACAA, while it implies a private right of action, permits private litigants only injunctive and declaratory relief. The court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment, concluding that she had raised genuine issues of material fact regarding defendant's alleged inadequate crew training and failure to provide her an aisle seat for rest room access.

Reversing in part, the Eleventh Circuit followed the approach used in Alexander v Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), 44 ATLA L. Rep. 202 (June 2001), giving paramount importance to legislative intent to create a private right and a private remedy. Sandoval delineates three sources for determining legislative intent, in order of importance: the statute's language, structure, and, if the first two sources are not definitive, legislative history. First, the court noted that the ACAA does not expressly provide a private right to sue in federal court. Second, it noted that Congress created three express mechanisms for enforcing the ACAA, including a limited form of judicial review of administrative decisions, but made no mention of private suits in federal court. This undermines the suggestion that Congress intended to create by implication a private right of action in federal court, the court said. Finally, the court found the statute's legislative history indicates that Congress passed it to protect disabled individuals through an administrative enforcement scheme, and not through a private right of action.

Consequently, the court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.