fact that [the passenger] describes his hostile environment claim as a denial of service (described as of an environment so hostile that the passenger could not have reasonably been ‘the creation expected to the ADA preempts state laws relating to the services of an air board’), carrier.” In the court also applied the National Federation of the Blind v. United Airlines, Inc., ADA after finding that ticketing kiosks a number of different services that “plainly facilitate relate to air transportation arguments that the FAA savings clause would preserve …” Rejecting their claims, that discrimination claims do not impact the deregulation protected by the ADA, and that a general presumption exists in favor of state rights and exercise of power, the court determined the area of discrimination in air transportation is a field long reserved for federal regulation. Holding that the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Persons Act both possessed with claims are expressly preempted by the Airline “connection[s] service, plaintiffs’ Deregulation Act.” Ensuring Uniformity in Treatment on International Flights: Do Treaties Trump the ACAA? With the extension of the ACAA to foreign air carriers in 2000, the courts were faced with a new jurisdictional difference to accommodate: the intersection of the Warsaw Convention and and the ACAA. Giving preference to the effort Montreal Protocol (“Warsaw Convention”) of the signatory countries to create a uniform set of laws governing international air carriage, most courts find that the Warsaw Convention, where it applies, trumps or preempts separate claims under the ACAA. But, not all courts agree. Most courts give deference to the intention of the Warsaw Convention to achieve uniformity of rules governing claims arising from international air transportation. In doing so, these decisions find the treaty preempts separate discrimination claims that invoke or arise under the ACAA:
fact that [the passenger] describes his hostile environment claim as a denial of service (described as ‘the creation of an environment so hostile that the passenger could not have reasonably been expected to board’), the ADA preempts state laws relating to the services of an air carrier.” In National Federation of the Blind v. United Airlines, Inc., the court also applied the ADA after finding that ticketing kiosks “plainly facilitate a number of different services that relate to air transportation …” Rejecting arguments that the FAA savings clause would preserve their claims, that discrimination claims do not impact the deregulation protected by the ADA, and that a general presumption exists in favor of state rights and exercise of power, the court determined the area of discrimination in air transportation is a field long reserved for federal regulation. Holding that the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Persons Act both possessed “connection[s] with service, plaintiffs’ claims are expressly preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.” Ensuring Uniformity in Treatment on International Flights: Do Treaties Trump the ACAA? With the extension of the ACAA to foreign air carriers in 2000, the courts were faced with a new jurisdictional difference to accommodate: the intersection of the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Protocol (“Warsaw Convention”) and the ACAA. Giving preference to the effort of the signatory countries to create a uniform set of laws governing international air carriage, most courts find that the Warsaw Convention, where it applies, trumps or preempts separate claims under the ACAA. But, not all courts agree. Most courts give deference to the intention of the Warsaw Convention to achieve uniformity of rules governing claims arising from international air transportation. In doing so, these decisions find the treaty preempts separate discrimination claims that invoke or arise under the ACAA: