The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Banning Rideshare Driver from Airport for Telling Another Driver to "Move His 'Ass'" May Violate First Amendment
From Tuesday's decision by Chief Judge Richard Myers in Glover v. RDU Airport Authority (E.D.N.C.):
Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Glover, a rideshare driver who regularly serviced the Raleigh-Durham International Airport ("Airport"), sought assistance from Defendant concerning a male rideshare driver "who had been stalking, harassing, and intimidating her." One of Defendant's officers told Plaintiff Glover that there was nothing he could do about the harassment. Plaintiff Glover attempted to fill out a statement regarding the male driver's actions but was threatened (by another of Defendant's officers) with a lifetime ban if she submitted the statement to Defendant. Instead of completing the statement, Plaintiff Glover warned the male driver that she had reported his conduct to Defendant.
At that point, the male driver complained to Defendant about a months-old incident where Plaintiff Glover had told the male driver to move his "ass" in the Airport's rideshare staging lot if he did not "like" where he was "parked." After receiving that complaint from the male driver, Defendant allegedly banned Plaintiff Glover from the Airport's property for life, and admitted that the ban was due to the male driver's report that she said "a curse word."
Taking those allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the court cannot find as a matter of law that Defendant's decision to "ban[ ]" Plaintiff Glover from the Airport "for life … because she admitted" to saying "the word 'Ass'" in the Airport parking lot was a decision exercised "to the degree reasonably necessary to preserve th[at] forum for its intended use" [the standard applicable to "nonpublic fora" such as government-owned airports -EV].
Drawing every reasonable inference in Plaintiff Glover's favor (and putting Defendant's assessment of her speech in the context of her multiple reports to Defendant about a stalker), her prior use of profane language does not appear to have interfered with the "intended purpose [ ]" of the airport parking lot. {The court is hesitant to announce a rule to the contrary, which would in effect give airport officials "unbridled discretion" to ban individuals from airports for seemingly innocuous statements.}
The court notes, though, that what is plausible may not be probable, and factual development is necessary to ascertain whether that was the true basis for Defendant's ban of Plaintiff Glover.
