Gilstrap v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 11-55271 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, who has difficulty walking because of certain health problems, alleged that United did not provide her with adequate assistance moving through the airport on two airplane trips and that she suffered physical and emotional injuries as a result. The court held that the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq., and its implementing regulations preempted state and territorial standards of care with respect to the circumstances which airlines must provide assistance to passengers with disabilities in moving through the airport. The ACAA did not, however, preempt any state remedies that could be available when airlines violated those standards. The court also held that the ACAA and its implementing regulations did not preempt state-law personal injury claims involving how airline agents interact with passengers with disabilities who requested assistance in moving through the airport. Finally, the court held that a terminal used for transportation by aircraft was excluded from definition as a Title III-covered place of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part.
Court Description: Air Carrier Access Act / Preemption. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of an action alleging causes of action under California state tort law and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the basis that an airline did not provide the plaintiff with adequate assistance for moving through the airport. Reversing in part, and adopting the framework used by the Third Circuit, the panel held that the Air Carrier Access Act, an amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, and its implementing regulations preempt state standards of care with respect to the circumstances under which airlines must provide assistance to passengers with disabilities in moving through the airport but do not preempt any state remedies that may be available when airlines violate those standards. The panel held that the ACAA and its implementing regulations do not preempt state-law personal-injury claims involving how airline agents interact with passengers with disabilities who request assistance in moving through the airport. Affirming the dismissal of the ADA claim, the panel held that an airport terminal is not a place of public accommodation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.