Flier Claims Southwest Attendant Played Fashion Police

[ntalwar]

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.

 

[BVS]

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]

Good for Southwest for not going along.

Yes, let's allow everyone to kick people off for no reason!!!

Woohoo!!!

 

[yolland]

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.

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.

 

[ntalwar]

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?

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[phillyfan26]

The result of this case will be something more specific in the dress code rules. Sort of like with schools.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

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]

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

 

[U2FanPeter]

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.

 

[ntalwar]

Would she get arrested walking down the street?

No - there's a difference between public and public accomodation (hotels, restaurants, airplanes).

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.

 

[U2FanPeter]

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?

 

[ntalwar]

The Shirts can loosely fall under rules of security.

But the passengers in question got past security, and the FAA doesn't care.

 

[zoney!]

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.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i think the most shocking thing of all of this is that there are still good looking women working at hooters.

 

[zoney!]

Gender not an issue? I doubt the'y send the fat man home that bends over and shows plumber crack.

No, but the airline can make him buy an extra seat! Is THAT discrimination?

Go and argue that one!

 

[MsPurrl]

The Shirts can loosely fall under rules of security. Does skin 3 inches above the knee fall under the same rules?

How about skin three inches below the belly button?

 

[BVS]

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.

No they haven't been prohibitied, they have been deemed as inappropriate by certain peoples at that very time. This is my whole point. The instances of people with political shirts being escorted off of being asked to turn inside out was due to political bias. My point is unless it's defined it's up to the certain prejudices of that paticular person, and that's bullshit.

 

[BVS]

The Shirts can loosely fall under rules of security.

Um, no!!!

 

[BVS]

No, but the airline can make him buy an extra seat! Is THAT discrimination?

Go and argue that one!

Well if some actually does spill over into another seat then yes, they should have to pay for it. No one else can use that seat.

You can't buy one lot and build a house that spills over onto the next lot.

 

[indra]

One of the most disturbing things to me about this is the complete arbitrariness of decisions such as this. I just watched the Today show interview with her and on her return flight a female flight attendent on the very same airline complimented her on the very same outfit. One attendent thought the whole thing was offensive and one thought it was cute.

I still think the first attendent had his shorts in a bunch and was engaging in a power trip. And that shouldn't be the reason someone is kicked off (or even threatened to be kicked off) a flight.

 

[BVS]

How about skin three inches below the belly button?

Everyone's belly button height is different. 3 inches is nothing for me...

 

[anitram]

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.

That's not the point. Cases regarding onerous clauses are not argued based on the legal construction of the clause. They're argued based on whether the person/employee at the point of sale informed the customer of the clause, whether there were clearly posted signs, whether the customer was aware of the policy prior to contract formation due to custom and so on.

 

[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.

Yeah, they're made of some kind of paper towel material. It's usually us North Americans who walk all around Europe in shorts and get weird looks. I made sure I had a decent looking skirt the day I went to the Vatican for this reason as well. They will also sell these paper shawls to women in tank tops. Although I remember in Venice, they were giving them out for free at St. Mark's.

 

[indra]

Yeah, they're made of some kind of paper towel material. It's usually us North Americans who walk all around Europe in shorts and get weird looks. I made sure I had a decent looking skirt the day I went to the Vatican for this reason as well. They will also sell these paper shawls to women in tank tops. Although I remember in Venice, they were giving them out for free at St. Mark's.

I can't help but laugh at that type of thing. I would think God wouldn't have a problem with a little skin. Isn't he supposed to be the one who designed it (or at least started the design process)?

 

[Irvine511]

I can't help but laugh at that type of thing. I would think God wouldn't have a problem with a little skin. Isn't he supposed to be the one who designed it (or at least started the design process)?

skin is only for making babies.

 

[ntalwar]

My point is unless it's defined it's up to the certain prejudices of that paticular person, and that's bullshit.

Personal judgment is used by police officers as well. There's not much consistency in things like traffic violations and warnings for example. I don't see how it makes it any less valid - it's an inherent part of any policing system.

 

[indra]

skin is only for making babies.

Well...some people do get turned on in cathedrals, so making babies is a possibility....

 

[BVS]

Personal judgment is used by police officers as well.

Wow, that's your justification? Personal judgement in policing makes for a horrible cop. Next you'll start supporting racial profiling...