An accessibility lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has made its way to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Wednesday, February 2, 2022, attorneys for the TSA argued that the agency’s security mandates override accessibility measures and as such, some people whose disabilities prevent them from complying with standard screening protocols will not be able to fly.
The lawsuit up for debate in the court of appeals is Rohan Ramsingh v. TSA, a case stemming from an incident in the Tampa International Airport in 2019 in which the TSA claims that Ramsingh interfered with the security screening process and would not comply with TSA agents’ demands and was thus denied boarding. However, Ramsingh and his attorneys argue that it was not that Ramsingh would not comply but that he could not comply due to the nature of his disabilities.
Details of the incident
Ramsingh is a disabled US Army veteran who suffered a shoulder injury during service that prevents him from raising his arms above his head, a posture that is required when going through the TSA body scanner. Additionally, Ramsingh reports that he suffered sexual trauma during his time in service that has resulted in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Ramsingh’s PTSD is triggered by having strangers touch his body, especially in sensitive areas, which is exactly what happens during a TSA body pat-down.
When Ramsingh entered the security checkpoint, by his account, he was straightforward with security agents about his disabilities. Somehow during the interaction, Ramsingh set off the explosives device detection system, an act that triggers additional screening protocol including the body scanner and a physical pat-down. Declining both due to his disabilities, no other solutions were offered that would satisfy TSA protocol and also accommodate Ramsingh’s disabilities.
Ramsingh was not cleared to fly, which would have been a big enough blow. But in addition to that, according to Ramsingh and his attorneys, TSA supervisors interpreted Ramsingh’s behavior as disrespectful to the agency’s authority and threatened him with detention, fines, and police intervention. According to the attorney, security videos show that Ramsingh remained calm and simply asked to leave the airport since he was not allowed to board.
TSA instead felt the need to involve local law enforcement who arrived on the scene, declined to detain Ramsingh and let him go. Ramsingh assumed that was the end of the incident until days later when he received notice of a civil penalty fine in the amount of $2500 for “interfering” with TSA protocol (which was later reduced to $680).
It was the civil penalty fine that triggered the initial lawsuit from Ramsingh. The original suit made its way to the court of appeals after a lower court sided with the TSA on March 4th, 2021, and upheld the reduced $680 fine against Ramsingh for interfering in the screening process. In both proceedings, attorneys from the TSA made the argument that the TSA has security obligations that are mandated by federal law and those mandates take precedence over finding screening procedures that are accommodating to any disabilities a passenger may have. As TSA attorney Kyle Edwards sees it, "It's the case here that if certain passengers cannot go through the process due to their disabilities, or due to other reasons, they simply won't be able to fly.”
February’s hearing
In court earlier this month, Judge Patricia Millet of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals inquired about accommodations for people who can’t participate in traditional security protocols due to physical or mental health reasons, to which Edwards replied that a manual pat-down is protocol in the event a passenger sets off the explosive device screener and there is no alternative screening method. The judge then pointed out that a pat-down even in a private room does not address PTSD or trauma. At this point, Edwards plainly stated that in a post-9/11 world, some passengers simply “are not going to be allowed to fly,” and seemed to hold firmly to that position.
“That's a little shocking to me,” Millett said, adding that the ADA addresses transportation rights granted to impaired passengers. While Millett’s comments seem hopeful for Ramsingh and all travelers with disabilities, no decision has been made and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did not provide a time frame on a ruling.
Nothing new
Ramsingh’s experience echoes that of many other people with disabilities as they enter TSA screening areas. Reporting from NPR in 2021 examines some of these experiences with many travelers saying that navigating TSA is treacherous, anxiety-inducing, humiliating, and dehumanizing. Travelers report broken and lost equipment including expensive wheelchairs. This is in addition to damaged medicine and medical devices that travelers with disabilities need. Travelers report being yelled and screamed at repeatedly, an ordeal that is stressful and embarrassing for just about anybody, but it is intrusive and offensive for some, for example, people on the autism spectrum or those who have severe anxiety.
For its part, the TSA has established a separate office to help accommodate the needs of people with disabilities as they enter TSA screening, called TSA Cares. Travelers report that TSA Cares is extremely helpful and useful in streamlining the screening process for travelers with disabilities.
User accounts paint it as a magical fix for an increasingly common issue. The only problem is that resources are limited, and many travelers report being unable to access help from TSA Cares, waiting hours on hold for an agent. And when they are able to schedule assistance from TSA Cares, many report that their representative never shows up and are abandoned to take on TSA on their own.
Ideally, the Ramsingh case would shed more light on TSA’s accessibility failures and prompt lawmakers to funnel more funding to initiatives like TSA Cares that bring humanity and empathy into the screening process. It will be interesting to see where the case goes in appeals.
Comments