A Trump-appointed federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by former Alaska State Senator Lora Reinbold over her temporary ban from Alaska Airlines during the pandemic concerning face masks.
In Alaska, Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Alaska Airlines Over Face Masks
During the pandemic, Reinbold was a fierce masking mask critic and often resisted wearing a mask when traveling on Alaska Airlines. At one point in 2021, after arguing with Alaska ground staff over a doctor’s note “exempting” her from wearing a mask, she was banned (Alaska cited a “pattern” of resistance).
Alaska is a vast state separrated by sprawling distances between major cities. Juneau, the state capital, is not connected to other major cities by surface roads, making air travel all but essential. Alaska Airlines, as its name suggests, provides vital intra-Alaska travel. The ban forced Reinbold to travel to Juneau via a strenuous network of roads and ferries through Canada.
Reinbold is not an attorney but proceeded pro se (represented herself) in the case, even though Alaska Airlines dropped the ban against her when the mask mandate was lifted. She argued that Alaska Airlines violated her rights under:
- The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy
- The US Constitution
Alaska Airlines asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Reinbold failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted (i.e. she did not even plead correctly). Judge Joshua Kindred agreed.
The problem for Reinbold (you can read the 37-page ruling here) was that air travel is not governed by the ADA and the US Constitution does not apply to Alaska Airlines.
Kindred wrote that he “construes the pleadings of self-represented litigants generously and affords plaintiff the benefit of the doubt,” but that Reinbold failed to even state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Nevertheless, he dismissed the case “without prejudice” meaning that she can amend her claims and refile if she so chooses.
While Alaska lifted her ban in 2022, she wants to ensure uninterrupted access to Alaska Airlines in case of a future mask mandate.
“Unfortunately, there was no due process nor an ability to appeal the behind-closed-doors corporate decision to ban me. A lawsuit was the only viable option to seek justice.”
She argues that as a “monopoly” carrier in Alaska backed by state and federal tax dollars or subsidies, Alaska is not merely a private company, but a vital source of public accommodation.
Her argument on that point is not so unreasonable…her position on masks, however, strikes me as far less persuasive.
“Reinbold was a fierce masking mask critic and often resisted wearing a mask when traveling on Alaska Airlines.”
The astounding level of infantile, idiotic, and truly deplorable elements that continue to infect this country.
Yes, yes you are. The sooner we can have the next civil war the better.
I can see her point in challenging this but she should have called Saul Goodman instead, it seems 🙂
Agreed. If you are going to challenge something, at least know the law you are challenging. The only airline that actually abided by the strict letter of the law was delta. But they made it overly burdensome. However, they did actually provide a pathway to flying with an exemption. American, Alaska, United, etc. should all be held liable for violating the ACAA, which is what they are governed under.
Held liable by who? As this opinion details, there is no automatic private right under the ACAA
No, the opinion is about the ada, you would know that if you read it. Also, the ACAA specially states the airline has to demonstrate you are a health threat before denying boarding. I would keep going, but it doesn’t matter because you will argue what you didn’t read anyway.
You stated airlines “should all be held liable for violating the ACAA, which is what they are governed under.” I asked held liable by who, given what the ACAA says and this opinion. Now you respond as if I’m the one who’s wrong when you made the statement about the ACAA. Lol
“You may refuse to provide transportation to any passenger on the basis of safety, as provided in 49 U.S.C. 44902 or 14 CFR 121.533, or to any passenger whose carriage would violate FAA or TSA requirements or applicable requirements of a foreign government.
(1) You can determine that there is a disability-related safety basis for refusing to provide transportation to a passenger with a disability if you are able to demonstrate that the passenger poses a direct threat (see definition in § 382.3). In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat, you must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain:
(i) The nature, duration, and severity of the risk;
(ii) The probability that the potential harm to the health and safety of others will actually occur; and
(iii) Whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate the risk.
*(2) If you determine that the passenger does pose a direct threat, you must select the least restrictive response from the point of view of the passenger, consistent with protecting the health and safety of others. For example, you must not refuse transportation to the passenger if you can protect the health and safety of others by means short of a refusal. *
(3) In exercising this authority, you must not act inconsistently with the provisions of this part.
(4) If your actions are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this part, you are subject to enforcement action under Subpart K of this part.
(d) If you refuse to provide transportation to a passenger on his or her originally-scheduled flight on a basis relating to the individual’s disability, *you must provide to the person a written statement of the reason for the refusal. This statement must include the specific basis for the carrier’s opinion that the refusal meets the standards of paragraph* (c) of this section or is otherwise specifically permitted by this part. You must provide this written statement to the person within 10 calendar days of the refusal of transportation.”
This is why children like you should keep their mouths shut when they can’t be bothered to read. She claimed she was discriminated under the ada, the airlines are not governed under the ada. They are governed under the ACAA. It even said so in the article, you illiterate child.
“Reinbold is not an attorney but proceeded pro se (represented herself) in the case, even though Alaska Airlines dropped the ban against her when the mask mandate was lifted. She argued that Alaska Airlines violated her rights under:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy
The US Constitution
Alaska Airlines asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Reinbold failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted (i.e. she did not even plead correctly). Judge Joshua Kindred agreed.
The problem for Reinbold (you can read the 37-page ruling here) was that air travel is not governed by the ADA and the US Constitution does not apply to Alaska Airlines.”
Of course it was dismissed. She wasn’t even demonstrating that she was harmed under the correct law. I’m not a lawyer and even I can read what is written.
Another example of a person wading into the legal mumbo-jumbo alone , without an attorney .
She is an idiot of the highest order and for her stripe of politician that is truly saying something
Good God, could you ever be more of a partisan nitwit. It’s amazing that you people will defend something so failed, that was scientifically demonstrated prior to the ‘pandemic’ to provide no value that all ‘pamdemic’ guidance specifically suggested no masks.
Then, you so callously prove a complete lack of empathy for those of us who have a legitimate medical condition. Hell, you want to not provide medical accomodations, then make people walk to the plane. I’m sick of getting run over by elderly people who are otherwise perfectly capable causing higher flight costs and clogging up the airport so they can’t be wheeled to their seat. But I don’t see you coming out against that. Instead, you play bs politics. It says more about you that you don’t believe the actual doctors who agreed with us that we shouldn’t be wearing masks over your psychopathic leaders. Think about that. Nevermind, you really don’t possess the critical thinking skills.
I’ve never seen someone so absolutely triggered concerning masks than you. It’s comical. She fought masks for political reasons for months, then claimed a medical reason for not being able to wear one. BS. Had she really had a medical condition, she could have quietly sought accommodation. Instead, it was all motivated by a sick and twisted political posturing that does not fool anyone with discernment. I don’t have empathy for sheisters.
Yeah, I’m triggered, you jerk. Don’t you think maybe if I’m still pissed about this maybe it’s because I had a legitimate reason? Ffs, used your gray matter. I don’t care about the politician, like you do. I care about the airlines not following the law (except delta) prior to the mandate. You would know this if you attempted to use the exemption. Furthermore, once the mandate was in effect, it provided exemptions as the ACAA required. Even american changed their policy after that fact. So, why would they change the policy requiring testing to fly no more than 3 days in advance to allow you to fly maskless if they weren’t forced to by the mandate? For a “legal scholar” you seem to let your politics dictate your opinion with no basis.
A strong case of deja vu…
Masks didn’t/don’t work.
Social distancing was propaganda.
Lockdowns were subjugation.
“Vaccines” are snake oil.
Wow. Denial really isn’t just a river in Egypt…
You’re not correct to state it was dismissed without prejudice. The opinion specifically dismisses most of her claims with prejudice (i.e. she cannot refile), and basically goes on to state that even those that are without prejudice (i.e. can be refiled) can only be done through seeking leave of the Court or Alaska Airlines consent. And, even then, that the Court will consider whether her refiling is being done with malice. Basically, that’s a warning by the Court to say “if you do refile, be careful”.
We hardly knew who the “Biden-appointed judges” “Obama-appointed judges,” or “Bush-appointed judges” were, but damn, the media always makes sure to point out who the “Trump-appointed judges” are. It’s odd.
I point it out because even a Trump-appointed judge (who would be more likely ideologically sympathetic to the plaintiff) saw though this charade of a lawsuit.