ERRONEOUS ENFORCEMENT ACTION DOES NOT VIOLATE
CONSTITUTIONIn Central Airlines, Inc. v. United
States, (1998 WL 88378), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit dismissed a carriers complaint for failure to state
constitutional claims upon which relief could be granted. The case
arose out of the misinterpretation of the FARs by FAA employees, who
threatened to ground the carrier's airplanes unless they installed
specific icing equipment on their aircraft. To avoid fines and
grounding, the equipment was installed. The carrier alleged that the
FAA later admitted that the employee's interpretation of the
regulations was not correct, and claimed a loss of nearly eight
million dollars. The carrier sued, alleging violation of its equal
protection and substantive due process rights. The district court
denied the employees 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and they appealed.
The Eighth Circuit dismissed the equal protection claim because
the pleadings did not contain allegations of intentional or
purposeful discrimination. A blind allegation that the employees did
not act in good faith by acting on a misinterpretation was
insufficient. The substantive due process claim (also based on the
erroneous FAR interpretation) was dismissed because it fell far
short of the requisite "arbitrary, capricious, and flagrant
conduct." The dissenting opinion stated that the allegations in the
complaint were sufficient under the liberal standards of notice
pleading, and that qualified immunity does not apply. "[R]easonable
officials in the position of FAA employees would have known that
their conduct would violate such rights." |
