Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MOHAMAD SHEBLEY and
EAMAN SHEBLEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS,
INC., UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and
SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendants.

No.

COMPLAINT
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, MOHAMAD SHEBLEY and EAMAN SHEBLEY, by and
through their attorneys, Phillip J. Robertson of CAIR-Chicago and Maaria Mozaffar, and for
their Complaint against Defendants UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., UNITED
AIRLINES, INC., and SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., state as follows:

INTRODUCTION
1.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 49 U.S.C § 40127 (a), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42
U.S.C. § 2000d to remedy acts of discrimination on the basis of their actual and/or
perceived religion, race, ancestry, ethnicity, color and/or national origin committed by
Defendants when Plaintiffs were wrongfully removed from United Airlines Flight 5811
on March 20, 2016, at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.

1

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1343.

3.

Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1319(b) because
Defendants regularly operate their airline services in, and have a continuous presence in,
the State of Illinois (specifically, regular operations at O’Hare International Airport in
Chicago, Illinois). United is also headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

PARTIES
4.

Mohamad Shebley and Eaman Shebley (“Plaintiffs”) are United States citizens and
residents of the State of Illinois. Plaintiffs are Lebanese-Americans and Muslims.
Plaintiff Eaman Shebley is an accountant and the mother of three children. She wears a
traditional head covering required by her Islamic faith -- the hijab. Her husband, Plaintiff
Mohamad Shebley, is a Director of Clinical Pharmacology with a Ph.D in Pharmacology.

5.

United Continental Holdings, Inc., is the parent company of its subsidiary, United
Airlines, Inc. (collectively “United”). United is a commercial air carrier engaged in
domestic, intrastate, interstate, and foreign air transportation, and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. United hires pilots, flight attendants, and service crew to carry out its
flights, and it contracts with other air carriers for certain routes.

6.

SkyWest Airlines, Inc., is the parent company of its subsidiary, SkyWest Airlines
(collectively “SkyWest”). SkyWest is a commercial air carrier engaged in domestic,
intrastate, interstate, and foreign air transportation, and is headquartered in St. George,

2

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:3

Utah. SkyWest hires pilots, flight attendants, and service crew to carry out its flights, and
it is contracted by other air carriers to fly certain routes for them.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7.

On March 20, 2016, Plaintiffs boarded United Flight 5811 along with their three young
children at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, departing to Washington
D.C. for a family vacation for Spring Break.

8.

All five passengers passed through security with ease and on time.

9.

Eaman Shebley was seated with her young daughter (who was in a booster) in seats 16c
and 16d.

10.

Mohamad Shebley was seated in seat 16b, and the two other children were seated in seats
12c and 12d.

11.

Flight Attendant Eroll Agacaolli, an employee of Defendant SkyWest, walked down the
aisle checking the seatbelts of all the passengers. Plaintiffs and all three children were
secured with seatbelts.

12.

Mohamad Shebley politely asked Agacaolli for over-the-shoulder straps for their
youngest child who was sitting in the booster seat next to Eaman as indicated by United’s
website (United.com).

13.

Agacaolli responded by saying that the airline did not supply over-the-shoulder straps for
its passengers.

14.

Mohamad offered to show Flight Attendant Agacaolli the straps indicated on the United
website. Agacaolli took Mohamad’s phone to look at the website.
3

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4

15.

While Agacaolli was reading the website on the phone, another Flight Attendant, Alicia
Heyes, approached Eaman and informed her that her daughter could not be seated in a
booster seat.

16.

Eaman said, “Okay,” and asked if the airline would be providing over-the-shoulder straps
for her daughter instead.

17.

Alicia Heyes did not answer Eaman’s question, but instead simply repeated her directive
that her daughter could not be seated in a booster seat.

18.

Eaman, now a little confused, stated that she was not aware that she could not use the car
seat booster, especially since Plaintiffs were allowed to bring it on to the plane with them
after being checked-in at the gate by Defendants’ own staff. She asked, “Is it safer for my
daughter to be without a booster?”

19.

Heyes did not answer the question, but simply responded again that her daughter could
not be in a booster.

20.

At this point, Agacaolli informed the Shebleys that they all needed to step off the plane.

21.

Mohamad asked why they were being asked to leave.

22.

Neither Agacaolli nor Heyes gave Plaintiffs an answer. Instead, Agacaolli repeated his
request by telling them that they all needed to step off the plane.

23.

Eaman removed the booster seat from under her daughter, but by this point the flight
attendants were no longer looking at Plaintiffs. Both Agacaolli and Heyes had already
turned away from Plaintiffs and were walking toward the cockpit without answering any
questions or providing an explanation.
4

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5

24.

Plaintiffs did not understand why they were being asked to get off the plane.

25.

Two passengers then approached Plaintiffs stating that they witnessed them follow all the
instructions of the flight attendants, and that Plaintiffs were seated with fastened seatbelts
the entire time.

26.

Plaintiffs’ children started to feel anxious to the point of tears, especially after another
passenger said they were all going to spend the night in jail.

27.

After a long delay, Alicia Heyes eventually returned, viewed both Plaintiffs with seat
belts, all three children with seatbelts, and the booster seat removed. Heyes said nothing
and walked back to the cockpit.

28.

Half an hour later, Flight Attendant Jen Moore approached Eaman and asked what was
going on. Eaman answered by stating that the other attendants had left them about an
hour ago after asking them to de-board, and were not answering any questions. She told
Moore that the other attendants told them nothing and offered them no explanation as to
why they had to leave the plane.

29.

Moore then told Eaman that she needed to take her belongings and step off the plane.

30.

Mohamad informed Moore that he was her husband, and he wanted to know why she was
being asked to leave the flight.

31.

Moore responded that a supervisor would speak to them about this off the plane. Moore
said they were being requested to leave the plane.

32.

Mohamad then asked why they were being asked to leave the plane.

5

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:6

33.

At this point a male flight attendant approached Eaman and again told her that they
needed to leave the plane.

34.

Mohamad again asked why they needed to leave the plane.

35.

The male flight attendant responded that they were allegedly not following instructions.

36.

A fellow passenger responded to the attendant by telling him that Plaintiffs had already
removed the booster seat per the request, and that the other flight attendants disappeared
an hour ago and had not returned since then.

37.

The male flight attendant again told Mohamad that they were not following directions.

38.

In response, both Eaman and the other passenger told him that the instructions of the
other flight attendants were followed.

39.

At that point, the male flight attendant said that if the Plaintiffs de-boarded they could
discuss it.

40.

The attendant then motioned to the Captain to approach Plaintiffs to speak with them.

41.

Captain Mathew Wagner stated that he was given full authority for the safety of the
plane, and that the flight attendants had notified him that the Shebleys were not following
instructions regarding their child.

42.

Plaintiffs replied that they did follow the instructions.

43.

One of the passengers who had witnessed the whole ordeal responded to the Captain by
stating that all the instructions were followed.

6

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:7

44.

Mohamad responded by saying that all he did was ask about over-the-shoulder straps for
his children, and that the other flight attendants did not answer him but instead just left
and had not returned. He said that they followed all the instructions, but now they were
being asked to leave.

45.

The Captain answered in the affirmative, and Mohamad again asked him why.

46.

Plaintiffs felt that their family was being unfairly targeted, given that they had followed
all the instructions, removed the booster seat, and were not being provided an explanation
as to why they now had to leave the plane.

47.

The Captain replied that it was his decision, and that he would talk to them on the jetway
and give them more details.

48.

Eaman asked if the decision was based on bias/discrimination. The Captain responded
that it was a flight safety issue.

49.

Eaman then asked the Captain if he saw the booster seat now.

50.

Mohamad again asked why his family was being singled out, but once again he was not
provided any explanation.

51.

Frustrated and sensing the futility of their efforts to obtain an answer from the flight crew
or Captain, and not wanting to cause any further emotional or psychological damage to
their three young children, the family left the plane.

52.

On the jetway, Captain Wagner told Plaintiffs that he would have frightened the other
passengers if he had explained this on board. He told them that after the U.S. Airway
plane landed on the Hudson River, a passenger tried to open the plane’s emergency exit
7

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:8

door even though a crew member told him that they were under water. He said that he
needed Plaintiffs to follow instructions no matter what they are.
53.

Mohamad responded that they did follow instructions, and that the explanation given by
the Captain was irrelevant.

54.

Captain Wagner did not comment on the fact that the instructions were indeed followed
by Plaintiffs, and simply apologized for the inconvenience.

55.

Plaintiffs then gathered their belongings, their tired and worried children, and walked to
their next flight on the other side of the airport. Defendants had placed them on another
United flight to Washington D.C.

COUNT I
49 U.S.C. § 40127(a): DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS IN AIR
TRANSPORTATION
56.

Plaintiffs hereby repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 55 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

57.

At all relevant times, the pilot, flight crew, gate agents and other personnel for
United Airlines Flight 5811 were agents and/or employees of Defendants (either
United or SkyWest).

58.

Defendants are liable for the unlawful acts of their agents and employees directly,
and/or under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

59.

As is clear from the conversation on the plane, Plaintiffs never posed any safety
or security risk to the aircraft, crew, or passengers of Flight 5811.
8

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:9

60.

Instead, Defendants engaged in intentional discrimination on the basis of
Plaintiffs’ actual and/or perceived race, color, national origin, religion or ancestry
in arbitrarily singling them out and removing them from Flight 5811.

61.

Defendants’ removal of Plaintiffs was arbitrary and capricious, unreasonable, and
not based on a rational appraisal of the information actually known to Defendants
under the circumstances at the time.

62.

Defendants’ misconduct against Plaintiffs has therefore deprived them of their
right to be free from discrimination by air carriers in violation of 49 U.S.C. §
40127(a).

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this
Honorable Court grant them the following relief:
A. Declare that Defendants’ conduct constitutes discrimination on the basis of religion,
race, ancestry, ethnicity, color, or national origin in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 40127(a);
B. Permanently enjoin Defendants and their directors, officers, agents, and employees
from engaging in future unlawful, discriminatory conduct as described above, including
revising the policy and/or practice that grants unfettered discretion to airline employees in
deciding when to remove passengers from flights based on their membership in a
protected class;
C. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial for
their loss and injury, including, but not limited to, emotional distress, humiliation,
9

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:10

deprivation of their right to be free from discrimination by air carriers, and deprivation of
their right to be free from discrimination in any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance;
D. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial that would
punish Defendants for their wilful, wanton, and reckless conduct, and that would further
deter them from engaging in similar conduct in the future;
E. Award Plaintiffs the costs, expenses, and fees expended herein, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
F. Award Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
G. Award Plaintiffs any and all other equitable and further relief to which Plaintiffs may
be entitled.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1981: DISCRIMINATION IN THE MAKING AND ENFORCEMENT OF
CONTRACTS
63.

Plaintiffs hereby repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 55 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

64.

At all relevant times, the pilot, flight crew, gate agents and other personnel for
United Airlines Flight 5811 were agents and/or employees of Defendants (either
United or SkyWest).

65.

Defendants are liable for the unlawful acts of their agents and employees directly,
and/or under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

10

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:11

66.

Plaintiffs did not violate any of Defendants’ rules, regulations or guidelines, nor
did they present any safety or security risk. Therefore, they were entitled to
transport on the flight, and such constituted a contract with Defendants for air
travel from Chicago, Illinois, to Washington, D.C., on Defendants’ aircraft.

67.

Defendants engaged in intentional discrimination on the basis of Plaintiffs’ actual
or perceived race, color, ancestry, national origin, or ethnicity in arbitrarily
singling them out and removing them from Flight 5811. Consequently,
Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs in the making and enforcement of
their contract to fly on United Airlines Flight 5811 on March 20, 2016.

68.

Defendants’ conduct against Plaintiffs has therefore deprived Plaintiffs of their
right to make and enforce contracts regardless of race, color, ancestry, national
origin, or ethnicity, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this
Honorable Court grant them the following relief:
A. Declare that Defendants’ conduct constitutes discrimination on the basis of race, color,
ancestry, national origin, or ethnicity in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981;
B. Permanently enjoin Defendants and their directors, officers, agents, and employees
from engaging in future unlawful, discriminatory conduct as described above, including
revising the policy and/or practice that grants unfettered discretion to airline employees in
deciding when to remove passengers from flights based on their membership in a
protected class;

11

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:12

C. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial for
their loss and injury, including, but not limited to, emotional distress, humiliation,
deprivation of their right to be free from discrimination by air carriers, and deprivation of
their right to be free from discrimination in any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance;
D. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial that would
punish Defendants for their wilful, wanton, and reckless conduct, and that would further
deter them from engaging in similar conduct in the future;
E. Award Plaintiffs the costs, expenses, and fees expended herein, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
F. Award Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
G. Award Plaintiffs any and all other equitable and further relief to which Plaintiffs may
be entitled.

COUNT III
42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964): DISCRIMINATION IN
FEDERALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES
69.

Plaintiffs hereby repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 55 above as though fully set forth verbatim herein.

70.

At all relevant times, the pilot, flight crew, gate agents and other personnel for
United Airlines Flight 5811 were agents and/or employees of Defendants (either
United or SkyWest).

12

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:13

71.

Defendants are liable for the unlawful acts of their agents and employees directly,
and/or under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

72.

Upon information and belief, Defendants receive federal financial assistance to
support their domestic air carrier operations pursuant to the Air Transportation
Safety and Systems Stabilization Act, P.L. 107-42.

73.

Defendants engaged in intentional discrimination on the basis of Plaintiffs’ actual
or perceived religion, race, color, national origin, or ethnicity in arbitrarily
singling them out and removing them from Flight 5811.

74.

Defendants’ misconduct against Plaintiffs has therefore deprived Plaintiffs of
their right to be free from discrimination in any program or activity receiving
federal financial assistance in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this
Honorable Court grant them the following relief:
A. Declare that Defendants’ conduct constitutes discrimination on the basis of religion,
race, color, ancestry, national origin, or ethnicity in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d;
B. Permanently enjoin Defendants and their directors, officers, agents, and employees
from engaging in future unlawful, discriminatory conduct as described above, including
revising the policy and/or practice that grants unfettered discretion to airline employees in
deciding when to remove passengers from flights based on their membership in a
protected class;
13

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:14

C. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial for
their loss and injury, including, but not limited to, emotional distress, humiliation,
deprivation of their right to be free from discrimination by air carriers, and deprivation of
their right to be free from discrimination in any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance;
D. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial that would
punish Defendants for their wilful, wanton, and reckless conduct, and that would further
deter them from engaging in similar conduct in the future;
E. Award Plaintiffs the costs, expenses, and fees expended herein, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
F. Award Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
G. Award Plaintiffs any and all other equitable and further relief to which Plaintiffs may
be entitled.

JURY DEMAND

75.

Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury.

14

 Case: 1:17-cv-01906 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:15

Respectfully Submitted,
MOHAMAD SHEBLEY
EAMAN SHEBLEY

BY:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Phillip J. Robertson
CAIR-Chicago
17 N. State St., Ste. 1500
Chicago, IL 60602
PH: (312) 212-1520
FAX: (312) 212-1530
probertson@cair.com
Atty. No. 6209869

Maaria Mozaffar
The Law Office of Maaria Mozaffar, P.C.
25901 West Kelly Court Plainfield
Naperville, IL 60563
PH: (331) 643-3107
maariamozaffar@sbcglobal.net
Atty. No. 6295280

15

/s/ Phillip J. Robertson____________
One of their Attorneys