FAA Inspector Sues United for $12.75 Million After Reporting “Illegal” Seat Pocket
In a shocking legal battle, a veteran FAA Safety Inspector has filed a massive $12.75 million lawsuit against United Airlines. The reason? He claims the airline slapped him with a lifetime travel ban and tried to ruin his career—all because he pointed out a torn seatback pocket.
The drama began on a flight from San Francisco to Lihue when the off-duty inspector, Paul Asmus, noticed a defect at his seat. What seemed like a minor rip turned into a high-stakes standoff involving police, thousands of dollars in “restitution” demands, and a federal investigation.
The “Safety Violation” That Grounded a Flight
According to the complaint, Asmus—who was coincidentally part of the team overseeing United’s Boeing 737 MAX fleet—spotted a torn seatback pocket. He argued the damage “impaired” the ability to secure the mandatory safety briefing card, a technical violation of FAA rules.
Things escalated quickly when:
- Asmus took photos of the torn pocket and a passenger standing in the aisle during pushback.
- The flight crew accused him of being “combative” and filming them.
- The Captain allegedly gave an ultimatum: Show the photos or the plane returns to the gate.
Despite complying and showing that no crew were in the photos, the plane was turned around. Asmus was hauled off the aircraft and hit with a lifetime ban from the airline.
United Strikes Back: The $3,153 Bill
The retaliation didn’t stop at the ban. United allegedly:
- Demanded $3,153 from Asmus to cover the costs of returning to the gate.
- Filed a formal complaint with the FAA, labeling him a disruptive passenger.
- Triggered a federal investigation that forced him off his safety oversight duties for the airline.
The Judge’s Stunning Ruling
While United argued they have the “absolute discretion” to remove anyone they deem a safety risk, an Administrative Law Judge recently blew a hole in their defense. In a 45-page decision, the judge found:
- United’s witnesses were “unreliable” and lacked candor.
- Asmus was performing his regulatory duty to report safety concerns.
- Safety reporting must be protected, regardless of whether the person is an official inspector or an anonymous traveler.
The federal case against Asmus was dismissed “with prejudice,” but United has reportedly refused to lift the lifetime ban. Now, Asmus is seeking $12.75 million for defamation, emotional distress, and the “character assassination” he claims was a calculated move to get a strict inspector off their back.
Is this a case of a power-tripping fed or an airline trying to silence a whistleblower? it remains to be seen,
