LOS ANGELES - La Mirada resident Rob Anders was set to visit his 89-year-old mother in Florida for a family reunion last month.

Anders, a longtime airline industry employee, won round-trip domestic airfare on Northwest Airlines for him and a companion at his company holiday party last December. But when he tried to redeem the tickets for him and his registered domestic partner, Northwest refused.

"I felt terrible," said Anders, who has lived with his partner for 15 years. "I thought what they were doing was unfair."

A representative from Northwest Airlines told Anders that the airline would only recognize a spouse, another airline employee, or a dependent child as a companion. The representative specifically stated Northwest Airlines would not recognize a registered domestic partner as a "spouse" for the tickets.

"What happened to Mr. Anders and his partner violates California law and is clearly discriminatory," said Christine P. Sun, ACLU of Southern California staff attorney. "We are asking that the company not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status and honor Mr. Anders' ticket for him and a companion."

In a letter to Northwest Airlines sent Thursday, Sun wrote that the Unruh Civil Rights Act, part of California law "mandates 'full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever' without regard to sexual orientation or marital status."

"Because same-sex couples who wish to marry cannot currently do so under California law, using marriage as a criterion discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Sun said. "Northwest's policy also discriminates on the basis of marital status because it does not permit unmarried heterosexual individuals to bring the companion of their choice."

Anders, who is 60, has lived in Southern California since 1971. He and his partner Pat registered as domestic partners in California in 2004. Anders is part of many local civic groups and has traveled the world.

LOS ANGELES - A federal judge today sided with an air marshal concerned that overly restrictive policies may jeopardize the public's safety and curtail whistleblower rights.

U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie said in a brief decision Tuesday that a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Southern California on behalf of Air Marshal Frank Terreri against the government should move forward toward a trial.

"The Federal Air Marshal policies have a chilling effect on whistleblowers' speech," said Peter Eliasberg, Manheim Family Attorney for First Amendment Rights at the ACLU of Southern California. "If air marshals fear participation in public discussion that could improve the safety of the airline industry the public is at risk. The original policy, and the new one, is unconstitutional and we are pleased the judge rejected the government's argument and will allow the case to go forward so we can demonstrate how these policies improperly chill speech that the public has a vital interest in hearing."

In the original lawsuit, filed in April 2005 against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other security officials, Air Marshal Frank Terreri challenged Federal Air Marshal Service rules that prohibited him from speaking publicly about his job or saying anything to do with the Air Marshal Service, a clear violation of his First Amendment rights.

The government then changed its personnel policy in July, but, like the previous directive, it contains speech-restrictive provisions and is likely to continue to put the public's safety at risk. At the end of August, Terreri amended his lawsuit to also challenge the constitutionality of the new policy.

Terreri has 16 years of law enforcement experience with an unblemished record. For the past four years he has been a federal air marshal and is also a president of the air marshal division of a professional membership organization that represents more than 24,000 federal agents, including 1,400 air marshals.

Last year Terreri was taken off active flight duty and placed on administrative duty after he sent a private e-mail to another air marshal raising concerns about an air marshal profile in People magazine. He was returned to active flight duty the day after filing the lawsuit in April. He learned he was cleared of the first investigation and the charges were unfounded only after filing a Freedom of Information Act Request.

The ACLU of Southern California, Professor Allan Ides of Loyola Law School and Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris and Hoffman are representing Terreri.

'The ACLU of Southern California is enormously dismayed that the Police Commission secretly changed its longstanding, and appropriate, policy of releasing names of police officers involved in shootings.

While police officers of course have an interest in maintaining the privacy of their personnel records, shielding their names from public accountability is a mistake and is not required by law. Police officers who wear their names on their badges have no expectation of privacy in their names themselves. By contrast, shedding sunlight on police activity, including through public identification of officers involved in shootings, strongly bolsters public confidence in the workings of the department sworn to protect and serve the community.'