Flier Claims Southwest Attendant Played Fashion Police - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-09-2007, 07:49 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Ah, I thought she was on TV on her own.

So, next question: Would a lawyer even chose to represent her if there was no chance of winning the case? (In case he isn't just behind some money he could charge her)
It was on the Today show. Who knows what's happened behind the scenes. The incident happened two months ago, and she just went public with it now. Maybe they already tried to get money, and threaten to go public with it. Good for Southwest for not going along.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 09-09-2007, 08:25 PM   #92
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


I don't see what discrimation law was violated from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -race, color, religion, or natural origin?
Who said anything about the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Ever heard of sexism?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-09-2007, 08:27 PM   #93
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


Good for Southwest for not going along.
Yes, let's allow everyone to kick people off for no reason!!!

Woohoo!!!

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-09-2007, 08:54 PM   #94
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:33 PM
I wouldn't say "no" reason--I've never heard of a 'dress code' that doesn't allow the service provider or employer some leeway in interpreting its application on a case-by-case basis; that would be completely unrealistic. That's not to say, certainly, that the attendant who challenged her couldn't have been egregiously unreasonable or inconsistent in how he applied that policy...I just don't know that it's all that cut-and-dried, especially since none of us know what exactly her outfit looked like before she "adjusted" her skirt and top at the flight attendant's request.
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Not necessarily.
Is there some rule of thumb about how the relevant policies are to be communicated? That was a very long list of rules.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:03 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Who said anything about the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Ever heard of sexism?
Gender was not an issue here - lack of clothing was.
Can you name a specific statute that protects one's right to dress as one chooses in a public accomodation?
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:09 PM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland


Is there some rule of thumb about how the relevant policies are to be communicated? That was a very long list of rules.
Generally it depends on how onerous the clause is, the more onerous the more the airline would have to do to bring it to the attention of the customer.

If the policy is to send people home to change and have them take a later flight, I'm thinking that the courts would probably see it as onerous, because of the level of inconvenience we are talking about. If so, then the airline can't just print this in font 5 on the back of the ticket and call it a day.

The thing is, most airlines have this exact policy, or something similar, I'd assume. But my guess is they let people onboard and hand them a blanket and try to ignore it rather than requiring a change of clothing.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:12 PM   #97
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 07:33 AM
The result of this case will be something more specific in the dress code rules. Sort of like with schools.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:13 PM   #98
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
The result of this case will be something more specific in the dress code rules. Sort of like with schools.
Or they'll start selling those paper pants that the Vatican makes you buy for a Euro to go into St. Peter's if you're in shorts.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:29 PM   #99
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


Gender was not an issue here - lack of clothing was.
Gender not an issue? I doubt the'y send the fat man home that bends over and shows plumber crack.


Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar

Can you name a specific statute that protects one's right to dress as one chooses in a public accomodation?
Would she get arrested walking down the street?

So basically your argument comes back to the fact that you or this attendent has the right to determine how much skin can or can't be seen. What if the attendant was Muslim or Southern Baptist, their standards would be different. Should they have the right to make these determinations as well.

Look, if there are not requirements specifically stated, like skirts must be this many inches off the knee, what gives you the right to determine it's not enough if there is no exposure?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:30 PM   #100
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Or they'll start selling those paper pants that the Vatican makes you buy for a Euro to go into St. Peter's if you're in shorts.
Really? Interesting, although it's ok to show Christ in a loin cloth?

Paper pants
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:37 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,585
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar
Can you name a specific statute that protects one's right to dress as one chooses in a public accomodation? [/B]
Other than Religious headgear? No.

There's not much on the SWA website regarding clothes, beyond ways of making the security screening go faster.
__________________
U2FanPeter is offline  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:47 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Would she get arrested walking down the street?
No - there's a difference between public and public accomodation (hotels, restaurants, airplanes).

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So basically your argument comes back to the fact that you or this attendent has the right to determine how much skin can or can't be seen. What if the attendant was Muslim or Southern Baptist, their standards would be different. Should they have the right to make these determinations as well.

Look, if there are not requirements specifically stated, like skirts must be this many inches off the knee, what gives you the right to determine it's not enough if there is no exposure?
Maybe more training is needed to ensure uniformity? Anti-Bush t-shirts have been prohibited as well. Like it or not, they have a right to enforce a dress code.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:49 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,585
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar
Anti-Bush t-shirts have been prohibited as well. Like it or not, they have a right to enforce a dress code.
The Shirts can loosely fall under rules of security. Does skin 3 inches above the knee fall under the same rules?
__________________
U2FanPeter is offline  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:53 PM   #104
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2FanPeter


The Shirts can loosely fall under rules of security.
But the passengers in question got past security, and the FAA doesn't care.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 09-09-2007, 10:03 PM   #105
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,292
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Generally it depends on how onerous the clause is, the more onerous the more the airline would have to do to bring it to the attention of the customer.

If the policy is to send people home to change and have them take a later flight, I'm thinking that the courts would probably see it as onerous, because of the level of inconvenience we are talking about. If so, then the airline can't just print this in font 5 on the back of the ticket and call it a day.

The thing is, most airlines have this exact policy, or something similar, I'd assume. But my guess is they let people onboard and hand them a blanket and try to ignore it rather than requiring a change of clothing.
The Contract is Carriage isn't really printed on "tickets" anymore. You will see part of it printed on ticket jackets, but for the most part, you can just find them these days (in the world of E-ticketing) on airline websites. You can also write them and they will send you one (or they will refer you to their website).

When you purchase your ticket, that is consent to the Contract of Carriage. The Contract is Carriage is written by airline legal departments...meaning, they know what they can or cannot get "away" with.

I did not realize this was two months old. I would bet she would get NO WHERE with a lawsuit.

Retaining a lawyer...just another "attention getting" move.
__________________

__________________
zoney! is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com