WHEN WALID SHATER, an Arab-American Secret Service agent, was kicked off an American Airlines flight on December 25, 2001, he said he was the victim of racial profiling. The story made national headlines. Even the president got involved, telling reporters he’d be “madder than heck” if it turned out Shater was a victim of discrimination. But a year and a half later, it looks as if the Shater incident was a total nonevent, completely unworthy of the considerable coverage it received. Days after Shater was ejected from the Dallas-bound flight 363 leaving Baltimore-Washington International, he obtained legal representation and formally accused American Airlines of being “rude, unprofessional, and mean” when ordering him off the plane. Shater claimed he was singled out for his ethnicity. Lawyers for the airline said otherwise, arguing that Shater incorrectly filled out forms allowing him to board the plane with a firearm, and then grew angry when airline personnel questioned him about it.
Shater demanded the airline apologize for what he said was a new form of discrimination, while American Airlines continued to deny it was in the wrong. What happened next? Nothing. Shater didn’t sue, and American didn’t apologize. After taking a brief leave from his job, Shater was reinstated as a Secret Service agent, and he is once again protecting the president.
So was it racial profiling? Not likely. When someone files an airline discrimination complaint with an advocacy group like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), as Shater did, the advocacy group contacts the Department of Transportation, which then conducts its own investigation. Three months ago, the department found there wasn’t evidence to support Shater’s claim that he was racially profiled.
Normally, such a ruling determines the future of a civil rights complaint. But instead of giving up, Shater has switched lawyers to the high-powered human rights attorney Michael Hausfeld, a partner at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, & Toll in Washington, D.C.
Hausfeld, “one of the top 100 influential lawyers in America” according to the National Law Journal, says the Department of Transportation’s ruling doesn’t mean Shater’s story is incorrect. “They basically said that there was a conflict between Walid and American, but they weren’t going to make the determination as to who was at fault,” he says. “There is a clear difference in what was observed, and unfortunately, that’s the basis for the existence of a dispute. The issue is how that dispute is resolved.”
Hausfeld says that if there was any problem with Shater’s paperwork, it was the airline’s fault. After an earlier flight had been canceled, airline personnel simply crossed out the flight number and departure time on Shater’s forms and filled in the information for flight 363. Which is how his paperwork ended up looking suspicious, according to Hausfeld. But even if true, this hardly sounds like prejudicial treatment.
There’s no dispute, however, that Shater became irritated when he was asked to step off the plane so his paperwork and identification could be reviewed. Upset by the delay (he was trying to reach the rest of the president’s security detail in Crawford, Texas), Shater announced he’d use “the powers of the White House” to get the pilot fired.
Which raises an interesting issue: Who decides who flies? “This goes back to the historical concept of the captain of the ship,” says David Byrd of the Air Transport Association, a trade association for the airlines. “By regulation, the pilot has ultimate responsibility for the safety of the airplane. He’s got the authority to make decisions about people and things that might be inimical to air flight.”
That was the case in November 2000, when two Saudi doctoral students were removed from an America West plane after flight attendants concluded they were acting suspiciously. The students turned to the CAIR, who filed a complaint on their behalf. One of the students, Muhammad al-Qudhai’een, sued America West. Al-Qudhai’een’s suit was dismissed in May of this year. One month later, he was in federal custody on a terrorism-related charge.
There’s one more challenge facing Shater if he decides to sue: a changed climate of opinion. Accusations of racial discrimination against Arabs and Muslims were all over the airwaves after September 11, but the issue has since receded. According to CAIR’s own compilation of discrimination complaints, accusations of racial profiling directed against airlines and airports began falling precipitously several months after September 11.
Will Shater sue American Airlines? “Walid is exploring his options,” says Hausfeld, who is working pro bono, adding that his client isn’t in any rush to resolve the dispute. What does that mean exactly? It is hard to know. Shater didn’t return several phone calls for this article.
Matthew Continetti is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.
