The United States government has filed a civil complaint in federal district court against Boutique Air, Inc., a passenger air carrier based in San Francisco. The action seeks to enforce civil penalties assessed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for alleged violations of federal regulations related to drug and alcohol records checks on employees.
Boutique Air operates both scheduled and charter flights and is certified by the FAA. As such, it must comply with federal rules concerning workplace drug and alcohol testing, including requirements for records checks, training, reporting, and recordkeeping. One regulation prohibits FAA-certified air carriers from allowing newly hired employees to perform safety-sensitive functions for more than 30 days unless the company obtains or makes a good faith effort to obtain those employees’ drug and alcohol testing records from previous transportation industry employers.
According to the complaint, Boutique Air did not conduct the required drug and alcohol records checks on 21 employees hired into safety-sensitive roles such as mechanics, a pilot, and a ground security coordinator. The FAA alleges that between August 2020 and September 2021, these employees were authorized to continue performing their duties beyond the permitted 30-day period without proper verification of their drug and alcohol testing history from prior employers.
On September 22, 2023, the FAA sent a letter to Boutique Air outlining its findings that the company violated regulations governing employee drug and alcohol records checks on 21 occasions. The agency sought payment of a civil penalty totaling $291,417—the maximum allowed amount under current law. The recently filed complaint aims to collect this penalty.
United States Attorney Craig H. Missakian and FAA Chief Counsel Liam McKenna announced the filing of the complaint.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sapna Mehta is handling the case. The investigation was conducted by the FAA.
Officials noted that “The complaint contains allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.”
