Paul Asmus, an off‑duty FAA safety inspector, sued United Airlines after he was deplaned and allegedly placed under a lifetime travel ban for reporting a torn seat‑back pocket and a passenger standing during pushback on May 12, 2022. He photographed the issues to file an FAA report; United billed him $3,153 for returning the aircraft to the gate and filed a complaint that led to FAA enforcement action. A DOT administrative law judge dismissed the FAA charges on June 27, 2025, finding United's claims "not credible," but United has not lifted the ban. Asmus, representing himself, seeks $12.75 million in damages; a case management conference is set for May 5.
Off‑Duty FAA Inspector Sues United After Being Deplaned, Says He Was Banned for Reporting Safety Concerns
L: Federal Aviation Administration headquarted in Washington, D.C.; R: Two United Airlines planeesKevin Carter/Getty; Robert Alexander/Getty
Paul Asmus, an off‑duty Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety inspector, has filed a civil lawsuit against United Airlines after he says the carrier removed him from United Flight 1684 on May 12, 2022, and imposed a lifetime travel ban after he reported two safety problems.
What Happened On The Flight
According to the complaint filed Jan. 30 in federal court in San Jose, Asmus boarded the San Francisco–bound flight and noticed a torn seat‑back pocket at his assigned seat that he says "impaired the ability to secure and access the emergency briefing card," a potential FAA concern. He also alleges he observed a passenger standing in the aisle while the aircraft pushed back from the gate.
Although off duty at the time, Asmus says he had a professional obligation to report those issues. He photographed the damaged pocket and the unsecured passenger to document the incidents for an FAA report. The complaint alleges a flight attendant accused him of photographing crew members and described him as "combative"; crew members reportedly told the captain that Asmus was seeking a free upgrade, which he denies.
The exterior of the San Francisco International AirportGetty
The complaint states the captain demanded Asmus show the last photo on his phone or the plane would return to the gate. Asmus says he complied, showed his camera roll, and the crew still returned to the gate and deplaned him. United then allegedly billed him $3,153 for the cost of returning the aircraft to the gate and placed a lifetime travel ban on him. The airline also filed a complaint with the FAA that prompted a civil enforcement action.
Administrative Ruling And Aftermath
On June 27, 2025, an administrative law judge with the U.S. Department of Transportation dismissed the FAA's enforcement charges against Asmus. The judge’s decision—attached to Asmus’s lawsuit—found the claims that he interfered with flight attendants to be "not credible." The FAA declined to appeal, making the decision final.
"Chilling passenger complaints about safety issues, by negatively responding to such complaints, will lead to negative impacts. Inevitably, unreported matters will impact the safety of the aircraft and the lives of all passengers on board," the judge wrote.
After the ruling, Asmus says he asked United to lift the travel ban but was refused. He also claims the incident harmed his FAA career, including reassignment away from duties that involved an active investigation of United's Boeing 737 MAX fleet.
A United Airlines Boeing 787-9 planeNicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty
Legal Claims And Relief Sought
Asmus is representing himself and has accused United of multiple torts, including defamation per se, tortious interference, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil extortion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil assault, and tortious interference with federal duties. He is seeking $12.75 million in damages: $250,000 for lost wages and legal costs, $2.5 million for severe emotional distress and professional humiliation, and $10 million in punitive damages.
An initial case management conference in the matter is scheduled for May 5. A United Airlines spokesperson declined to comment to media.
Why This Matters: The case raises broader questions about how airlines respond to safety complaints from credentialed inspectors and whether punitive consumer or corporate responses could deter reporting of safety issues that affect all passengers.
Help us improve.
