PHILADELPHIA – Defendants in a wrongful death lawsuit brought on behalf of a man who worked at Philadelphia International Airport and was fatally stabbed after a conflict with a co-worker, have had their motions to dismiss partially granted.
Tamara Pryor (as administrator of the Estate of Aaron Jenkins) of Philadelphia first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 8 versus the City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia International Airport, both of Philadelphia, Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. of Jamaica, N.Y. and Frontier Airlines, of Denver.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 5, due to the claims at issue and diversity of citizenship between the parties. Keisha Brown was also substituted for Pryor as plaintiff.
“Aaron Jenkins was pronounced dead on May 3, 2018 at Presbyterian Hospital from a stab wound. Jenkins was a 28-year-old resident of Philadelphia County, residing at 126 West Roselyn Street, Philadelphia, PA 19120. Plaintiff brings this suit as Administrator of the Estate of Aaron Jenkins, as personal representative of Aaron Jenkins,” the suit stated.
“At all times relevant to this cause of action, plaintiff was an employee of Frontier and Worldwide Flight Services during his employment at Philadelphia International Airport in the City of Philadelphia. During plaintiff’s employment with defendants, it was custom for other employees to enter Philadelphia International Airport, as well as the terminals, without going through security checks. Due to defendants’ custom, airport employees bypassed security and lack thereof, and were permitted to enter the airport and terminals with prohibited weapons.”
Once inside Frontier Airlines’ terminals, defendants’ employee, Kevin Emanuel, bypassed security with a knife and stabbed Jenkins in his leg, resulting in his death.
“During employment, employee Kevin Emanuel bullied and tormented the plaintiff with no relief from defendants. After the stabbing, employees at Philadelphia International Airport became more concerned for their safety. Defendants’ conduct caused the safety measures at Philadelphia International Airport to decrease and put plaintiff’s safety, and the public’s safety at stake who make up 30,000,000 visitors who utilize the airport’s services annually,” per the suit.
“Based on defendants’ conduct, they failed to ensure Jenkins’ safety at his place of employment by: (1) Failing to ensure there were security checkpoints for visitors at Philadelphia International Airport; (2) Failing to ensure there were security checkpoints for airport staff; (3) Failing to investigate the lack of safety of the employees, after defendants were put on notice that weapons were prohibited on entering the airport; (4) Failing to train and supervise employees on airport security policies; and (5) Failing to protect Jenkins from the injury he endured at defendants’ facility resulting in his death by his co-worker.”
Motions for dismissal came from all of the defendants except Frontier Airlines on Dec. 9 and 10, respectively.
Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. issued its dismissal motion first, on Dec. 9.
“Plaintiff asserts negligence against Worldwide Flight Services. It is alleged that plaintiff decedent Jenkins was an employee of WFS and the subject incident took place ‘during his lunch break’ as a result of his co-worker’s actions,”
“First, plaintiff fails to identify the specific location of the subject incident. As such, plaintiff cannot make out a valid claim for negligence against WFS. Second, plaintiff's claims against WFS are barred by the exclusivity provision of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Further, WFS argued there “are no allegations to support that the subject incident was derived from personal animus between plaintiff decedent Jenkins and his co-worker Emanuel.”
WFS also claimed that no allegations of recklessness were properly pled against it, and thus, do not have a cause of action to request it to pay punitive damages.
The City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia International Airport followed up with their dismissal motion on Dec. 10, countering that no municipal policy or custom was responsible for the subject constitutional rights violation at hand.
“Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 for violations of the 14th Amendment should be dismissed because she has not sufficiently pled a violation of decedent’s constitutional rights, and has not sufficiently pled that any such violation was directly caused by a policy or custom of the City of Philadelphia,” their motion stated, in part.
“Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages should also be dismissed because such claims are barred under Section 1983 jurisprudence. For these reasons, all claims against moving defendants should be dismissed, with prejudice.”
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Cynthia M. Rufe ordered on July 14 that WFS’s motion to dismiss would be denied in its entirety and the City’s motion to dismiss would be partially denied and partially granted.
“In the motion to dismiss, the City argues that plaintiff’s theory of liability rests on the City’s mere failure to act, specifically a failure to enforce its security screening policy, rather than any affirmative action. However, at this stage of the litigation, the Court cannot determine the full context of the alleged removal of the security screening measures, and drawing all inferences in favor of plaintiff, cannot rule out that it was an affirmative act,” Rufe stated.
“The City maintained direct control and supervision of Terminal E and the City exercised its authority by removing or failing to enforce the security screening policy. Plaintiff has therefore adequately alleged that if the City had not affirmatively removed the screening, Jenkins would not have been subject to such an attack. Such allegations are sufficient to plead an affirmative act under this element.”
While accepting a properly-pled state-created danger claim from the plaintiff, Rufe dismissed the City’s punitive damages claim with prejudice, as such damages are not recoverable against a municipality under Section 1983 – and because a factual record is required to determine the precise nature of the City’s knowledge and actions with regard to the City’s security screening policies at PHL, the City’s motion as to the Section 1983 claims was denied.
As to the state law negligence and punitive damages claims contained in WFS’s dismissal motion, those were dismissed outright.
“Plaintiff alleges facts that suggest Jenkins’ injury fits within the Workers’ Compensation Act personal animus exception. Jenkins had allegedly been tormented and bullied by the specific co-worker. The history between the individuals, and the fact that the incident involved a deadly weapon and occurred during a break and not while employees were moving baggage, suggests that the attack may have been personal in nature. Discovery is needed to determine whether a different person in the same position as Jenkins would have been subjected to the same harm,” Rufe said.
“WFS also argues that plaintiff’s request for punitive damages should be dismissed because plaintiff has failed to plead sufficiently outrageous or extreme conduct on the part of WFS. Here, plaintiff has pled that WFS ‘recklessly and/or in reckless disregard’ failed to ensure that there were security checkpoints for airport staff at PHL and failed to investigate the safety of the employees after WFS was put on notice that its employees were bringing weapons into Terminal E. These allegations, if proven, may support a claim for punitive damages and a developed record is necessary to make this determination.”
For counts of survival, wrongful death, negligence and violation of both the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, the plaintiff is seeking actual, special, compensatory, incidental, consequential and punitive damages, costs of suit, attorney’s fees and such additional or further relief as the interest of justice may require, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Mu’min F. Islam of MFI Law Group, in Philadelphia.
The Philadelphia-based defendants are represented by Michelle E. Turner of Bennett Bricklin & Saltzburg, plus Kristi A. Buchholz and William J. Taylor Jr. of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-05532
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 200500110
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com