Dr. Douglas Haynes v. Board of County Commissioners of Adams County, Colorado – No. 16-22-10
FAA Docket No:
16-22-10
Author:
Michael W. Helvey, Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis
Complainant(s):
Douglas HaynesRespondent(s):
Board of County Commissioners of Adams County, ColoradoAirport(s):
Colorado Air and Space Port (CFO/CASP)
Holding:
No Violation; Complaint DismissedAbstract:
Complainant, Douglas Haynes, a Colorado resident and black man, rented a T-hangar from Windchaser Hangars, LLC. (Windchaser) (Director’s Determination, p. 2.) He filed a complaint under 14 C.F.R. Part 16 alleging the Board of County Commissioners of Adams County, Colorado (“County”) violated Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination; Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights; and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it allowed Windchaser to terminate his T-hangar rental agreement, asserting different treatment based on his race; when it pressured Windchaser to terminate Dr. Haynes’s T-hangar rental agreement in retaliation against him for filing a Part 16 complaint; and when it allowed Windchaser to terminate its rental agreement with him even though he (allegedly) “addressed all questionable discrepancy to a fully suitable status within a week.” (This dispute incorporated Dr. Haynes’s disagreement with Renae Bagwell of Windchaser and reargued many of the issues resolved by the Order of the Director in FAA Docket No. 16-22-04.) (Director’s Determination, p. 1.)
The County moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, denying that it violated Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights, when Dr. Haynes’s lease was terminated. (Director’s Determination, p. 2.) The County also denied that Dr. Haynes was treated differently than white sublessees and further denied that it pressured Windchaser to terminate Dr. Haynes’s rental agreement in retaliation for filing a Part 16 complaint. (Director’s Determination, p. 2). Finally, the County claimed it did not violate Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, when it allowed Windchaser to terminate Dr. Haynes’s rental agreement because Dr. Haynes was not using the hangar for aeronautical activities, and he failed to bring his T-hangar into compliance with the Colorado Air and Space Port’s (CASP’s) minimum standards. (Director’s Determination, p. 2.)
Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights—Termination of Hangar Rental
Dr. Haynes claimed that Respondent violated Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights, by citing him for multiple violations of its minimum standards, including storing private business materials, keeping derelict aircraft and parts in long-term storage, blocking access for first responders, overusing extension cords, and limiting access to fire extinguishers. (Director’s Determination, p. 6.) He alleged that Windchaser had given a white aircraft owner two weeks or more to have an aircraft annual inspection completed before facing eviction, while he had been given no notice. (Director’s Determination, p. 6.) He further claimed that he had received a racially biased and unlawful eviction notice and had been given only a few days to vacate, despite addressing all alleged violations within a week. (Director’s Determination, pp. 6–7.)
The County disputed Dr. Haynes’s allegations, denying that he had been treated differently from white peers. (Director’s Determination, p. 7.) The County stated that eight sublessees had been originally cited for violations, but four corrected minimum standards violations and were allowed to continue leasing. (Director’s Determination, p. 7.) In contrast, Dr. Haynes and three others did not remedy the violations, leading Windchaser to terminate their leases. (Director’s Determination, p. 7.) The County noted that none of the noncompliant tenants, including Dr. Haynes, had been granted extra time to comply and that at least one other terminated tenant was white. (Director’s Determination, p. 7.) Dr. Haynes received identical treatment to other tenants whose leases were terminated, the County asserted. (Director’s Determination, p. 7.)
On this record, the Director determined that Dr. Haynes had not presented evidence showing the County was in violation of Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights. (Director’s Determination, p. 7.) Grant Assurance 30, consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in any activity benefiting from federal funding. (Director’s Determination, p. 7.) Under the legal framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1993), moreover, a complainant must establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, suffering an adverse action, and being treated differently than similarly situated individuals outside the protected class. (Director’s Determination, p. 7.) If this is established, the burden shifts to the accused to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, and then back to the complainant to prove that the reason is a pretext for discrimination. (Director’s Determination, pp. 7–8.)
The Director found that Dr. Haynes failed to establish a prima facie case, which required a showing of different treatment compared to similarly situated parties that were not of Dr. Haynes’s same protected class. (Director’s Determination, p. 8.) Dr. Haynes also had not provided evidence of other documentation contradicting the County’s evidence that his lease was terminated because he did not correct the minimum standards violations, not because he was a member of a protected class. (Director’s Determination, p. 8.) The record was void of any evidence of discrimination and the County had offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Dr. Haynes’s lease being terminated—he was out of compliance with the County’s minimum standards. (Director’s Determination, p. 8.)
Moreover, the County provided evidence that other parties were evicted in the same manner as Dr. Haynes. (Director’s Determination, p. 8.) With respect to the lockout notice, Dr. Haynes asserted that Windchaser “gave one of the other white base aircraft owners … two weeks or more to remedy their need to have an aircraft annual inspection completed before revisiting his need to be issued an eviction notice … .” (Director’s Determination, p. 8.) Yet, the record indicated that Dr. Haynes had months of notice about the violations. (Director’s Determination, p. 8.) The first inspection took place in April 2022, and by July 2022, Dr. Haynes had purchased an aircraft to attempt to address minimum standards violations in his hangar, demonstrating that he was aware of the need to use the hangar for aeronautical purposes. (Director’s Determination, p. 8.) However, Dr. Haynes’s attempt to meet the minimum standards was unsuccessful as he provided no evidence to CASP that the aircraft was in fact airworthy. (Director’s Determination, p. 8.)
The record further demonstrated that Windchaser notified Dr. Haynes on October 17 that a lockout notice would be posted the next day, with a November 2 deadline for compliance, giving him at least two weeks to correct the issues—contradicting his claim that the time he was given was different than “white base aircraft owners.” (Director’s Determination, p. 8.) Affidavit testimony further confirmed that all tenants facing eviction, including Dr. Haynes, received equal time to address discrepancies and were granted 60 days to vacate after eviction as long as rent was paid. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.)
According to the Director, the County presented uncontradicted evidence of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Windchaser’s actions, which is Dr. Haynes’s noncompliance with the airport’s minimum standards and FAA grant assurances. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.) Windchaser terminated four rental agreements to bring its premises into compliance with the FAA grant assurances, CASP’s minimum standards, and federal, state, and local laws. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.) Therefore, the Director found that Dr. Haynes did not show that the reason for Windchaser’s lockout notice, and subsequent eviction notice, was a pretext for discrimination. As such, the Director found no violation of Grant Assurance 30 and dismissed the allegation.
Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights—Retaliation
Dr. Haynes alleged that the County unreasonably pressured Windchaser to terminate his sublease in retaliation for an ongoing Part 16 complaint against the County. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.) He claimed that the County told Windchaser to act negatively toward him or risk being removed from the airport. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.)
The County denied that it pressured Windchaser to terminate Dr. Haynes’s lease, asserting that Dr. Haynes had been given the same opportunities as all other subtenants and was subject to the same rules and inspections as other tenants. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.) The County also maintained that Dr. Haynes was one of several Windchaser sublessees with violations in their T-hangars and that neither the County nor Windchaser treated him differently or singled him out. (Director’s Determination, pp. 9–10.)
The Director explained that retaliation is a prohibited form of discrimination under federal law and requires proof that the complainant engaged in a protected activity, that the accused party took adverse action, and that there was a causal connection between the two. (Director’s Determination, p. 10.) Dr. Haynes claimed the adverse action was the limited time he was allegedly given to correct hangar discrepancies compared to white tenants. (Director’s Determination, p. 10.) However, as with the discrimination claim discussed above, the Director found no evidence that Dr. Haynes was treated differently from similarly situated tenants. (Director’s Determination, p. 10.) Dr. Haynes offered no evidence or specific facts showing a causal link between his prior Part 16 complaint and the termination of his rental agreement. (Director’s Determination, p. 10.) The record showed that Dr. Haynes’s lease was terminated for failure to comply with airport minimum standards, and CASP found multiple tenants in violation. (Director’s Determination, p. 10.) Four tenants corrected their violations, while Dr. Haynes and others did not. (Director’s Determination, p. 10.) CASP also warned Windchaser that its lease could be jeopardized if noncompliant hangars were not addressed, undermining Dr. Haynes’s retaliation claim. (Director’s Determination, p. 10.)
Absent evidence that the County pressured Windchaser to target Dr. Haynes, and absent proof of retaliation, the Director determined that there was no violation of Grant Assurance 30, Civil Rights. (Director’s Determination, p. 11.)
Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination
Dr. Haynes argued that he was in compliance with CASP’s minimum standards and that his T-hangar was used for aeronautical purposes. (Director’s Determination, p. 11.) Additionally, he submitted undated photographs of his hangar and claimed he stored an airworthy, amateur-built aircraft (N23ED) in his T-hangar, as well as a self-made training device, and other materials used in association with his aircraft. (Director’s Determination, p. 11.)
The County denied any violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, and argued that Dr. Haynes was not engaged in aeronautical activity on the premises at the time of his lease termination. (Director’s Determination, p. 11.) The County maintained that he remained noncompliant with its minimum standards and submitted photographs from an inspection to demonstrate continued violations. (Director’s Determination, p. 11.) The County also noted that the registration for Aircraft N23ED was still pending. (Director’s Determination, p. 11.)
The Director ruled that Dr. Haynes failed to prove a violation of Grant Assurance 22, which requires airports be made available, without unjust discrimination, to all types of aeronautical activities. (Director’s Determination, p. 11.) Dr. Haynes had failed to identify how Windchaser’s efforts to bring its own subleased hangars into compliance with the County’s minimum standards was tantamount to a current violation of Grant Assurance 22. (Director’s Determination, p. 11.)
The record also showed that a September 2022 inspection identified violations in Dr. Haynes’s hangar, including the absence of an airworthy aircraft, storage of inventory or equipment supporting a private business, long-term storage of derelict aircraft or parts, storage of items that block an egress, and excessive use of extension cords. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.)
In an October 17, 2022, email exchange, Dr. Haynes denied noncompliance and requested more time to address the findings, but the County explained that he had been given ample opportunity to correct discrepancies and emphasized the importance of follow-through for safety and regulatory compliance. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) The County also informed him that eviction proceedings had begun due to multiple noncompliant hangars. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.)
Dr. Haynes claimed his hangar contained amateur-built electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, a wooden trainer, and the amateur-built N23ED aircraft, but he provided no documentation verifying these claims or the airworthiness of the aircraft. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) The FAA’s policy considers building and housing amateur-built aircraft an aeronautical use, but airport sponsors have discretion to evaluate hangar uses and enforce standards. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) In the Director’s Determination (p. 12.), the Director stated:
Here, the Complainant has asked the Director to find that, among all of the demonstrably non-aeronautical uses of the hangar, the Complainant’s conception of various rudimentary, unconventional, and likely unflyable projects resembling an aircraft amount to a primary aeronautical use of the hangar. While the Director does not make determinations of aircraft certification or airworthiness, the Director holds that the County does not bear the burden of accommodating every conceivable idea a hangar tenant may devise or believe to be an aeronautical use, including those projects in Dr. Haynes’ hangar that form the basis of this complaint. While amateur built aircraft are considered an aeronautical use, the airport sponsor can and should exercise reasonable discretion when evaluating hangar uses. The FAA policy provides clear guidance on sponsor requirements regarding non-aeronautical uses of hangars. (See Policy on the Non-Aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars, 81 FR 38906, 38910, 38911).
Relatedly, the Director concluded that the photographs in the record showed the primary use of Dr. Haynes’s hangar was nonaeronautical, and even if N23ED had been airworthy, it would not establish compliance. (Director’s Determination, p. 13.)
Altogether, the Director ruled that under Part 16, the burden of proof rested on Dr. Haynes to show noncompliance, and he failed to do so. (Director’s Determination, p. 13.) The County repeatedly found his hangar noncompliant, and Windchaser terminated his lease along with four other tenants with similar violations. (Director’s Determination, p. 13.) The violations persisted and the County acted reasonably in allowing Windchaser to terminate the lease; accordingly, the Director dismissed the allegation of a Grant Assurance 22 violation. (Director’s Determination, p. 13.)