AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORP. v. HOEPER
Background:
As William Hoeper, a pilot for Air Wisconsin tried to get his license to fly a different type of plane because the airline discontinued the use of that type of aircraft. On his fourth attempt to get his piloting license he quit because he had thought that the people giving him his test were changing his results causing him to fail his previous tests.
Hoeper was also a federal flight deck officer (FFDO). As a FFDO they are not able to carry a fire arm, which Hoeper did have that was issued to him by a Transportation Security Administrator or (TSA), when you ride in an airplane as a passenger. A TSA member booked him a flight from testing center in Virginia back home and then reported Hoeper as “disgruntled, and possibly armed, employee”. When they landed he was arrested and searched for carrying the firearm. Hoeper then sued Air Wisconsin because they were trying to get him to quit by changing his reputation under Virginia law. Air Wisconsin was not afraid to go to court because they were immune to the first amendment to the constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (First Amendment to the Constitution).
Constitutional Issue:
Air Wisconsin also argued that Hoeper had no proof of them shanging his test results and because their statements were “substantially true” and therefore he was protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Hoeper sued Air Wisconsin in a Colorado state court and said it was a false statement under Virginia law. Air Wisconsin moved for a directed verdict based on the argument that it was immune from civil liability under Aviation Transportation Safety Act (ATSA).
Decision:
Air Wisconsin’s statements to the TSA were false and that it made at least one statement for the truth, so the jury awarded Hoeper damages. The Colorado Supreme Court further investigated the evidence and supported the jury’s finding that the statements were false from what Air Wisconsin said. They were found false because there was very little information about Hoeper. To conclude that the statements were properly submitted to the jury because both showed the facts that Hoeper was a threat to aircraft or passenger safety, which was proved false, and informing TSA that Hoeper posed such a threat. Because a pilot can carry a firearm aboard an aircraft, Hoeper "may be armed. It was not true. It was an additional factor suggesting why TSA should consider him a threat.