Rhonda Mengert v. United States of America

Tulsa, Oklahoma personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and false imprisonment.

This case stems from Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) subjecting plaintiff

Rhonda Mengert to an inspection in a private room at Tulsa International Airport. After

Mengert's initial security screening and a subsequent pat-down left TSOs unsure as to the

nature of an object in her groin area—which turned out to be an ordinary feminine

hygiene product—TSOs led her to a private screening room and directed her to lower her

pants and remove the object for examination. Mengert has alleged that the incident

caused her to experience symptoms of a panic attack, and that her symptoms have

recurred on a regular basis when she travels by plane. Mengert brought claims against

the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging intentional

infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and false imprisonment. Relevant here, the district

court denied the government's motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity; granted the government's

motion to dismiss the IIED claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); denied Mengert's

untimely motion for leave to amend her complaint; and granted the government's motion

for summary judgment on Mengert's false imprisonment claim. All four of these

decisions are challenged on appeal.

We conclude that TSOs are “investigative or law enforcement officers” under

28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)’s law enforcement proviso, and therefore the United States

waived its sovereign immunity for Mengert’s claims challenging the TSOs’ conduct.

However, Mengert’s claims fail on the merits—the IIED claim was properly

dismissed because Mengert failed to allege sufficiently severe emotional distress, and

the district court properly granted summary judgment for the government on the false

arrest claim because Mengert’s claim challenges the TSO’s conduct during her

detention, not the lawfulness of the detention itself. Finally, Mengert has failed to

establish “good cause” for her untimely motion for leave to amend the complaint, and

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion. Therefore, we

AFFIRM.