DenverTed wrote:

Can you film customers in a private business without their consent? Isn't that governed by the business' policy? I was under the impression that it is against most airlines' policies to film people on aircraft, be they sleeping, or looking funny, or whatever. What is the policy on most airlines?

If that was illegal, we wouldn't have any "Karen" videos.

I was a union rep for 20 years at US Airways. Every airline has a posted rules of conduct. What he did would violate such policy and in this day and age he most certainly would be fired. And the company would be justified and have Just Cause to do so.

This isn’t about the law, this is about established, tested and long term rules of conduct.

That’s what many of you are failing to grasp.

If I was a woman and a flight attendant or a female pilot I would refuse to work with him.

The people arguing about the legality of this are missing the point entirely. People get fired all the time for doing things that are perfectly legal. What matters here is Delta's code of conduct and whether or not this action violates that. If his behavior violates their code of conduct then they are 100% justified in firing him, regardless of the legality of his actions.

SurlyBonds wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Some patently false statements here. It is a crime to take photos in public with indecent intent in many jurisdictions. Just one example from FL:

https://www.salazarandkelly.com/voyeuri ... penalties/

The incident at hand would not, in my opinion, be illegal under the Florida voyeurism statute discussed in the above articles.

Under the Florida statute, voyeurism occurs when a defendant “(1) with lewd, lascivious, or indecent intent, (2) secretly observes another person (3) when the other person is located in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance and (4) such location provides a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

The conduct probably does not satisfy element (3). An aircraft is not a dwelling or structure. I am not immediately clear what a "conveyance" is, although I assume that it refers to real property that can be conveyed, rather than the colloquial meaning of "transportation." The conduct certainly flunks element (4). There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the aisle of a packed aircraft. Arguably, the conduct even flunks elements (1) and (2). It's far from clear that this behavior was lewd; indeed, the Florida Bar article cited criticizes the statute precisely because it fails to capture behavior that is creepy, but not lewd. Finally, his filming may not have been all that secret, either. The twitter account was certainly able to publicize it easily.

As I already stated in my last reply, whether or not the action was criminal has no bearing on internal determinations via HR investigation. The only thing that matters is if professional conduct standards were violated and if so, to what extent they present demonstrable risk or reputational harm to the organization. Anything meeting those criteria is typically a terminable offense.

Y'all are hilarious with your sanctimonious outrage. You don't know what this guy was thinking and the notion some of you have that this is done with 'criminal intent' is idiotic. Maybe he is a weirdo, who knows; I'm not defending that, there's lots of those around. But he didn't touch her, he's not touching himself while doing it, he's not filming her bending over or in a compromising position, the camera's not on the floor to look up, she's fully clothed, in uniform, and just doing her job. Get over yourselves. This goes on in the terminal EVERY day, and no one gets arrested. It's off-putting but it's not criminal.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

The people arguing about the legality of this are missing the point entirely. People get fired all the time for doing things that are perfectly legal. What matters here is Delta's code of conduct and whether or not this action violates that. If his behavior violates their code of conduct then they are 100% justified in firing him, regardless of the legality of his actions.

While what you have posted is very true, the reality is there is numerous examples where companies have been subsequently sued and the employee gets a golden parachute and/or reinstatement.

I was only reading of a recent case where a parent made comments on a social media group about a school boards COVID response, a member of the school board was unhappy with the parents comments so provided the posts to the parents employer. The employer fired the employee due to their conduct, however the employee that was fired prevailed in the court. The employee has a 1st amendment right to make posts on social media.

Like it or not, any passenger has a 1st amendment right to take photos or videos in the cabin of an airliner, and I can guarantee you every passenger and crew member onboard that aircraft had video taken of them that day.

An update on the twitter link in the OP states the pilot was fired, I would not be surprised to see this dismissal in a court near you
https://twitter.com/snailconscious1/sta ... JOjnLhS8MQ

slvrblt wrote:

Y'all are hilarious with your sanctimonious outrage. You don't know what this guy was thinking and the notion some of you have that this is done with 'criminal intent' is idiotic. Maybe he is a weirdo, who knows; I'm not defending that, there's lots of those around. But he didn't touch her, he's not touching himself while doing it, he's not filming her bending over or in a compromising position, the camera's not on the floor to look up, she's fully clothed, in uniform, and just doing her job. Get over yourselves. This goes on in the terminal EVERY day, and no one gets arrested. It's off-putting but it's not criminal.

Why bother with codes of conduct and professional standards enforcement at all...is essentially the Cliff’s Note of your comment.

You also fail to address the fundamental aspect of the video: if what he was doing is completely normal and harmless, why go to the effort to conceal the phone under a tablet? Doesn't pass the sniff test.

zeke wrote:

DoctorVenkman wrote:

The people arguing about the legality of this are missing the point entirely. People get fired all the time for doing things that are perfectly legal. What matters here is Delta's code of conduct and whether or not this action violates that. If his behavior violates their code of conduct then they are 100% justified in firing him, regardless of the legality of his actions.

While what you have posted is very true, the reality is there is numerous examples where companies have been subsequently sued and the employee gets a golden parachute and/or reinstatement.

I was only reading of a recent case where a parent made comments on a social media group about a school boards COVID response, a member of the school board was unhappy with the parents comments so provided the posts to the parents employer. The employer fired the employee due to their conduct, however the employee that was fired prevailed in the court. The employee has a 1st amendment right to make posts on social media.

Like it or not, any passenger has a 1st amendment right to take photos or videos in the cabin of an airliner, and I can guarantee you every passenger and crew member onboard that aircraft had video taken of them that day.

An update on the twitter link in the OP states the pilot was fired, I would not be surprised to see this dismissal in a court near you
https://twitter.com/snailconscious1/sta ... JOjnLhS8MQ

The First Amendment only prevents the government restricting your speech.

A company can and will restrict speech.

If you violate the company’s rules of conduct you can be fired for Just Case.

It a crime to yell fire in a crowded movie theater, so there are restrictions on freedom of speech even by the government.

You can’t go to a bar and drink in uniform can you without facing discipline from your company.

zeke wrote:

DoctorVenkman wrote:

The people arguing about the legality of this are missing the point entirely. People get fired all the time for doing things that are perfectly legal. What matters here is Delta's code of conduct and whether or not this action violates that. If his behavior violates their code of conduct then they are 100% justified in firing him, regardless of the legality of his actions.

While what you have posted is very true, the reality is there is numerous examples where companies have been subsequently sued and the employee gets a golden parachute and/or reinstatement.

I was only reading of a recent case where a parent made comments on a social media group about a school boards COVID response, a member of the school board was unhappy with the parents comments so provided the posts to the parents employer. The employer fired the employee due to their conduct, however the employee that was fired prevailed in the court. The employee has a 1st amendment right to make posts on social media.

Like it or not, any passenger has a 1st amendment right to take photos or videos in the cabin of an airliner, and I can guarantee you every passenger and crew member onboard that aircraft had video taken of them that day.

An update on the twitter link in the OP states the pilot was fired, I would not be surprised to see this dismissal in a court near you
https://twitter.com/snailconscious1/sta ... JOjnLhS8MQ

Unlawful termination can be difficult to establish depending on the jurisdiction. Your post is essentially true though, as these are complex intersections of work and non-work life. That said, employers also have the right to enforce their standards and cultural values, and events that transpire when representing the company directly have a higher threshold for successful challenge in court. I would also remind you 1st amendment only applies to government control of speech, not private entities generally.

slvrblt wrote:

Y'all are hilarious with your sanctimonious outrage. You don't know what this guy was thinking and the notion some of you have that this is done with 'criminal intent' is idiotic. Maybe he is a weirdo, who knows; I'm not defending that, there's lots of those around. But he didn't touch her, he's not touching himself while doing it, he's not filming her bending over or in a compromising position, the camera's not on the floor to look up, she's fully clothed, in uniform, and just doing her job. Get over yourselves. This goes on in the terminal EVERY day, and no one gets arrested. It's off-putting but it's not criminal.

So when does Delta make a similar announcement that they see nothing wrong with what this Delta pilot did while wearing a Delta uniform ? I suspect they wouldn’t and they understand their employee ethics rules most likely prohibit this activity. If not then I would like to see Delta endorse his activity.

Had he been in street clothes this might be a non news issue. Maybe Frontier can connect the dots and find out it was a DL pilot jumpseating with a cabin seat assigned if anyone does the research.

However, wearing the uniform while taking advantage of a reciprocal jumpseat agreement between DL and Frontier and doing what he is doing makes this an offense worthy of termination

Boof02671 wrote:

The First Amendment only prevents the government restricting your speech.

A company can and will restrict speech.

If you violate the company’s rules of conduct you can be fired for Just Case.

It a crime to yell fire in a crowded movie theater, so there are restrictions on freedom of speech even by the government.

You can’t go to a bar and drink in uniform can you without facing discipline from your company.

The government does not restrict passengers taking photos or videos in an aircraft cabin (as I said they had the right to do what he did), there was no crime, your fire example is not relevant (that is a crime). The employee was not at his workplace, the other passengers and crew were not from the employer. The person who took the video of the pilot and posted it to social media with a view to get them fired is conducting what is known as tortious interference. Pilots cannot go to a bar in uniform because it is expressly forbidden activity, taking photos and videos in a public setting is not expressly forbidden.

People disagree on conduct of others all the time, they have disagreements. People are allowed to have different values, the standard is not what you or me thinks is is the standard, it is what the law says. There would be nothing expressly forbidden about what the pilot did.

I am not condoning what they did, I am merely pointing out is the issue here is people are projecting their values into the debate as a reason why someone should be fired. It does not matter what gender the pilot and FA are
male pilot female FA
female pilot female FA
male pilot male FA
female pilot male FA
however it will generate different personal views in each context. A HR department worth their grain of salt would be gender agnostic.

zeke wrote:

The employee was not at his workplace, the other passengers and crew were not from the employer. The person who took the video of the pilot and posted it to social media with a view to get them fired is conducting what is known as tortious interference. Pilots cannot go to a bar in uniform because it is expressly forbidden activity, taking photos and videos in a public setting is not expressly forbidden.

People disagree on conduct of others all the time, they have disagreements. People are allowed to have different values, the standard is not what you or me thinks is is the standard, it is what the law says. There would be nothing expressly forbidden about what the pilot did.

Sorry, this is not entirely accurate. There are enough umbrella terms in codes of professional conduct that some actions do not necessarily have to be 'expressly forbidden'. And an employee 'not being at the workplace' is not an excuse for engaging in unprofessional conduct that causes organizational injury to name or reputation.

Nowadays nearly all codes of conduct include language such as:

Employees should be aware that unlawful or unprofessional conduct, even in a
private capacity, may damage, or have potential to damage, the reputation of the
company and impact their ability to perform their role or maintain positive employment
status.

Employees are to treat colleagues, clients, and members of the public with equal respect and
fairness. Discrimination, bullying or harassment and/or other inappropriate behaviour will not
be tolerated in any form, and may constitute misconduct requiring disciplinary action, up to
and including termination.

I would be shocked if he didn’t violate multiple DL policies which may not be limited to being on duty or ona DL aircraft. The question will be do those applies while flying F9? My presumption is yes, as you do have to be respectful when traveling on other airlines. The pilot being in uniform is also representing DL. The next variable will be how much the union will defend him. Additional variables will be if he has had any other complaints or disciplinary actions against him.

zeke wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

The First Amendment only prevents the government restricting your speech.

A company can and will restrict speech.

If you violate the company’s rules of conduct you can be fired for Just Case.

It a crime to yell fire in a crowded movie theater, so there are restrictions on freedom of speech even by the government.

You can’t go to a bar and drink in uniform can you without facing discipline from your company.

The government does not restrict passengers taking photos or videos in an aircraft cabin (as I said they had the right to do what he did), there was no crime, your fire example is not relevant (that is a crime). The employee was not at his workplace, the other passengers and crew were not from the employer. The person who took the video of the pilot and posted it to social media with a view to get them fired is conducting what is known as tortious interference. Pilots cannot go to a bar in uniform because it is expressly forbidden activity, taking photos and videos in a public setting is not expressly forbidden.

People disagree on conduct of others all the time, they have disagreements. People are allowed to have different values, the standard is not what you or me thinks is is the standard, it is what the law says. There would be nothing expressly forbidden about what the pilot did.

I am not condoning what they did, I am merely pointing out is the issue here is people are projecting their values into the debate as a reason why someone should be fired. It does not matter what gender the pilot and FA are
male pilot female FA
female pilot female FA
male pilot male FA
female pilot male FA
however it will generate different personal views in each context. A HR department worth their grain of salt would be gender agnostic.

I never said it was a crime.

I’ve never said he violated any laws. I clearly stated Posted Rules of Conduct numerous times.

You said first amendment rights. Taking a pic isn’t first amendment rights. A company can restrict first amendment rights.

Delta and other companies have Posted Rules of Conduct.

He represented Delta in uniform, you can’t bring bad light upon your company. He can be discharged for for just cause.

Risky behavior which he did brings bad publicity and he can be fired.

Numerous “Karen’s and Kens” have been fired from their jobs for people posting videos of their behavior online and those people weren’t in uniform nor committing a crime.

Not sure if you live in the US but use a Google search and you find dozens of cases of people being fired for their behavior off of work.

planecane wrote:

The location and what type of picture makes a huge difference as far as what the consequences should be. Are you going to tell me that you've never looked at a woman's backside (or man's depending on what you are attracted to) in a public place? Does that make you a creep that should be punched in the face or something?

If he was attempting to photograph up her skirt then it would be a crime and he should be arrested and terminated. What he appears to have done does not deserve those consequences.

So again, based on this take, there is no point to having professional rules of conduct, much less enforcing them. Just throw the whole book out.

And it's pretty stunning for any adult to apparently not know the difference between glancing at someone's backside and leering at it. I can assure you almost any female relative or friend will be happy to explain the difference to you. And that's the other issue with your statement that 'neither gawking or taking photos are an issue in a public place' - again, this view only exists in a world where how ladies feel about being stared/leered at is immaterial. We do not live in that world, especially in setting company policy.

Aaron747 wrote:

planecane wrote:

The location and what type of picture makes a huge difference as far as what the consequences should be. Are you going to tell me that you've never looked at a woman's backside (or man's depending on what you are attracted to) in a public place? Does that make you a creep that should be punched in the face or something?

If he was attempting to photograph up her skirt then it would be a crime and he should be arrested and terminated. What he appears to have done does not deserve those consequences.

So again, based on this take, there is no point to having professional rules of conduct, much less enforcing them. Just throw the whole book out.

And it's pretty stunning for any adult to apparently not know the difference between glancing at someone's backside and leering at it. I can assure you almost any female relative or friend will be happy to explain the difference to you. And that's the other issue with your statement that 'neither gawking or taking photos are an issue in a public place' - again, this view only exists in a world where how ladies feel about being stared/leered at is immaterial. We do not live in that world, especially in setting company policy.

If he the video was of him leering at her backside (again, fully clothed, in public) would the reaction be the same? Or, what if he took the photos of a female passenger putting something in the overhead bin instead of an FA?

Professional rules of conduct are fine but I bet you won't find this scenario listed in Delta's. I have also said having some consequence like a suspension would be OK with me. My point this whole time has been that termination or arrest (for a crime that doesn't exist) is an over the top response to what the pilot did.

Losing your job for taking a photo of a fully clothed woman in a public place is not an appropriate consequence. If he was suspended and then warned that if he does that again he will be terminated then a second offense would be worthy of termination.

The reactions of many in this thread are just another example of cancel culture. If somebody says or does something that you think is "creepy" they should lose their livelihood without getting a chance to redeem themselves or learn from their mistake.

Boof02671 wrote:

You said first amendment rights. Taking a pic isn’t first amendment rights.

"Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes transportation facilities, the outside of federal buildings, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties."

"The ACLU does not believe that restrictions on photography in the public areas of publicly operated airports are constitutional"

from https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rig ... 20activity.

Aaron747 wrote:

Some patently false statements here. It is a crime to take photos in public with indecent intent in many jurisdictions. Just one example from FL:

https://www.salazarandkelly.com/voyeuri ... penalties/.

The only thing patently-false is that it's a crime to take photos IN PUBLIC with "indecent intent". Such a statute would be hopelessly-unconstitutional.

The statute referenced makes a "reasonable expectation of privacy" a fundamental element of the crime. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, as that term of art is defined by the law, when in your job performing tasks on a public conveyance. (The wording of the statute in question would make something like an up-skirt photo illegal, because normal people cover those areas in clothing to keep those areas private.)

What's so hilarious about this thread now is that while most folks would agree that what the guy did was wrong, and that he probably will be disciplined for it, there are those on here that are calling for the kind of penalties that would be associated with significantly-more-harmful conduct. And most of these people probably support a non-carceral consequence for things like robbery. Go figure.

People don't go to jail for making you feel uncomfortable or "triggered". Sorry.

Even funnier are the folks that are trying to tie this (wrongful) conduct to job requirements to justify his termination and loss of his license. Oh, he must not have "situational awareness" because of how he did this, and the like. Give it a rest, guys. He likely will be fired, not for anything to do with his piloting skills, but instead for embarrassing the company. Non-aviation-biz folks also don't generally appreciate how sensitive and prickly airlines are about non-revs not abusing the privilege of free travel. Frontier will be pissed. It will be a thing. Alcoholics on the flight deck get less attention than this.

planecane wrote:

If he the video was of him leering at her backside (again, fully clothed, in public) would the reaction be the same? Or, what if he took the photos of a female passenger putting something in the overhead bin instead of an FA?

Professional rules of conduct are fine but I bet you won't find this scenario listed in Delta's. I have also said having some consequence like a suspension would be OK with me. My point this whole time has been that termination or arrest (for a crime that doesn't exist) is an over the top response to what the pilot did.

Losing your job for taking a photo of a fully clothed woman in a public place is not an appropriate consequence. If he was suspended and then warned that if he does that again he will be terminated then a second offense would be worthy of termination.

The reactions of many in this thread are just another example of cancel culture. If somebody says or does something that you think is "creepy" they should lose their livelihood without getting a chance to redeem themselves or learn from their mistake.

Delta would have a rule for exactly this situation as required by federal law. They are required to prevent known sexual harassment in the workplace, the conduct is clearly harassment (the determination of which would occur on a case-by-case basis), and the pilot was clearly representing the company at the time. I don't know how it's "cancel culture" to terminate his employment. It's his own fault and there's really not much you can do at that point as an employer other than terminate him. Often when you see "cancel culture" thrown around it's just people who don't want to face responsibilities for their actions.

This thread is also mistaking criminal for illegal in this thread - something can be illegal under the Civil Rights Act (Section VII) but not result in criminal prosecution. If Delta knew about the behavior and allowed it to continue they could face financial penalties and have an incentive to terminate.

If he had leered, that's still illegal sexual harassment, however unless it was obvious we wouldn't have had an a.net thread about it.

zeke wrote:

I was only reading of a recent case where a parent made comments on a social media group about a school boards COVID response, a member of the school board was unhappy with the parents comments so provided the posts to the parents employer. The employer fired the employee due to their conduct, however the employee that was fired prevailed in the court. The employee has a 1st amendment right to make posts on social media.

This doesn't surprise me as that conduct appears to have happened outside the workplace. Employment cases can often be very fact specific. This will be a much more difficult case for the former employee.

kameleonten wrote:

Not going into the morality or speculation of what he did (which plenty of other users have above) - is what he did illegal? He is photographing externally visible, clothed body parts of a flight attendant in a public space (an aircraft) performing her work duties. There are a lot of arguments as to why he is or is not a creep and I am not making any conclusion as to that part but I am curious to know what the law says here. If he would be photographing her (full body) while doing a safety announcement, that is perfectly legal I presume (otherwise all the users photographing and filming the many events on aircraft that keep being posted on here and other places daily would be breaking the law). If he zooms in on her private parts while making that same safety announcement the case can certainly be made that he is a creep but is there a legal difference? If not, Delta could be the ones in legal trouble for wrongful termination if they let him go based on this (unless their employee manual has a hard or soft statement prohibiting these kind of actions when on duty/in uniform).

Totally agree with this statement. While I feel that his actions were very undoubtedly creepy and inappropriate (but that is my opinion and I don't know what his intentions were), we have to look at this from the legal point of view.

planecane wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

planecane wrote:

The location and what type of picture makes a huge difference as far as what the consequences should be. Are you going to tell me that you've never looked at a woman's backside (or man's depending on what you are attracted to) in a public place? Does that make you a creep that should be punched in the face or something?

If he was attempting to photograph up her skirt then it would be a crime and he should be arrested and terminated. What he appears to have done does not deserve those consequences.

So again, based on this take, there is no point to having professional rules of conduct, much less enforcing them. Just throw the whole book out.

And it's pretty stunning for any adult to apparently not know the difference between glancing at someone's backside and leering at it. I can assure you almost any female relative or friend will be happy to explain the difference to you. And that's the other issue with your statement that 'neither gawking or taking photos are an issue in a public place' - again, this view only exists in a world where how ladies feel about being stared/leered at is immaterial. We do not live in that world, especially in setting company policy.

If he the video was of him leering at her backside (again, fully clothed, in public) would the reaction be the same? Or, what if he took the photos of a female passenger putting something in the overhead bin instead of an FA?

Professional rules of conduct are fine but I bet you won't find this scenario listed in Delta's. I have also said having some consequence like a suspension would be OK with me. My point this whole time has been that termination or arrest (for a crime that doesn't exist) is an over the top response to what the pilot did.

Losing your job for taking a photo of a fully clothed woman in a public place is not an appropriate consequence. If he was suspended and then warned that if he does that again he will be terminated then a second offense would be worthy of termination.

The reactions of many in this thread are just another example of cancel culture. If somebody says or does something that you think is "creepy" they should lose their livelihood without getting a chance to redeem themselves or learn from their mistake.

Why was he hiding his phone while taking the pics?

zeke wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

You said first amendment rights. Taking a pic isn’t first amendment rights.

"Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes transportation facilities, the outside of federal buildings, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties."

"The ACLU does not believe that restrictions on photography in the public areas of publicly operated airports are constitutional"

from https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rig ... 20activity.

An airplane isn’t a public area.

And what the ACLU thinks doesnt matter.

And you didn’t respond to anything else.

hpff wrote:

They are required to prevent known sexual harassment in the workplace, the conduct is clearly harassment

I find it hard to understand how this is workplace sexual harassment. They're not colleagues, and this was done clandestinely. The victim didn't know it was happening, and likely never would have known it was happening if the sanctimonious person hadn't videoed the incident (perhaps with good intent) and then POSTED IT ON TWITTER (which was clearly done only to aggrandize herself and to virtue-signal). All she had to do is privately show the video to a Frontier manager at destination, and the privacy of the F/A would be protected. Or send it to DL's legal department or HR department. Instead, she splashed the woman's behind all over Twitter. NOW who is causing harm to the victim?

If someone videoed someone taking video of a naked child, and then posted the incident on Twitter, including the naked child in the post, both would likely be charged, no matter how virtuous the "protector" thought they were being. If the "hero" here really thought that the conduct was horrible, posting it in a public forum serves only to harm the victim.

Frontier has an obligation to protect its employees from harassment, i.e. from stuff like customers grabbing their butts, catcalls, no question. (There's case law on this kind of thing.) If customers were saying things like, "Turn this way baby so I can film your butt." of course that's harassment by third-parties that Frontier would have to take reasonable steps to discourage. And the way they would discourage it is by hammering Delta over its employee's conduct while traveling on a pass, which would cause DL to wreak vengeance on the offender, because pass privileges are a sensitive thing. But clandestine filming of one's employee by another company's employee seems pretty-remote to impose an obligation to protect on the part of Frontier, and a reciprocal obligation on DL.

An HR person might try to stretch the "policy" to cover this, but I think most lawyers would laugh. On the other hand, I'm often amazed by positions that other lawyers take -- well, not that they take them, that's their job, but that they BELIEVE them -- yikes!, so maybe not.

Boof02671 wrote:

I was a union rep for 20 years at US Airways. Every airline has a posted rules of conduct. What he did would violate such policy and in this day and age he most certainly would be fired. And the company would be justified and have Just Cause to do so.

This isn’t about the law, this is about established, tested and long term rules of conduct.

That’s what many of you are failing to grasp.

If I was a woman and a flight attendant or a female pilot I would refuse to work with him.

I don't purport to know the rules at DL, but I completely-agree with you that the conduct creates a workplace issue AT DELTA where females would not and should not want to work with the guy, and clearly don't have to. Best way to solve the problem: buh-bye. I always knew you were a person of principle, Sir, from your other posts, and you reinforce that here with a very fine one.

planecane wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

planecane wrote:

The location and what type of picture makes a huge difference as far as what the consequences should be. Are you going to tell me that you've never looked at a woman's backside (or man's depending on what you are attracted to) in a public place? Does that make you a creep that should be punched in the face or something?

If he was attempting to photograph up her skirt then it would be a crime and he should be arrested and terminated. What he appears to have done does not deserve those consequences.

So again, based on this take, there is no point to having professional rules of conduct, much less enforcing them. Just throw the whole book out.

And it's pretty stunning for any adult to apparently not know the difference between glancing at someone's backside and leering at it. I can assure you almost any female relative or friend will be happy to explain the difference to you. And that's the other issue with your statement that 'neither gawking or taking photos are an issue in a public place' - again, this view only exists in a world where how ladies feel about being stared/leered at is immaterial. We do not live in that world, especially in setting company policy.

If he the video was of him leering at her backside (again, fully clothed, in public) would the reaction be the same? Or, what if he took the photos of a female passenger putting something in the overhead bin instead of an FA?

Professional rules of conduct are fine but I bet you won't find this scenario listed in Delta's. I have also said having some consequence like a suspension would be OK with me. My point this whole time has been that termination or arrest (for a crime that doesn't exist) is an over the top response to what the pilot did.

Losing your job for taking a photo of a fully clothed woman in a public place is not an appropriate consequence. If he was suspended and then warned that if he does that again he will be terminated then a second offense would be worthy of termination.

The reactions of many in this thread are just another example of cancel culture. If somebody says or does something that you think is "creepy" they should lose their livelihood without getting a chance to redeem themselves or learn from their mistake.

I'll ask you again, if someone was following your wife around in a public place taking clandestine photos of her, you'd be ok with that? You keep trying to downplay this since the FA was fully clothed in a public place, so I'm curious if you'd apply that same standard to your own life. I'm curious if you'd give the person taking photos of your wife a free pass and a chance to learn from their mistakes, or would you want them to face some sort of consequence?

What most of you don’t grasp is it doesn’t have to be a crime or illegal to be terminated.

You can’t represent your employer in a bad light in public.

He hid the phone under his Kindle while taking pics of her.

Delta can terminate him.

Like I said before many “Karen’s and Kens” were terminated for their actions in public and weren’t breaking the law.

What is so hard for everyone to grasp?

He was in uniform, either jumpseating and allowed to sit in the cabin or he was traveling on a pass, BOTH are benefits provided to him by Delta.

Many airline employees have been fired for portraying their company in a bad light and weren’t breaking the law.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

The people arguing about the legality of this are missing the point entirely. People get fired all the time for doing things that are perfectly legal. What matters here is Delta's code of conduct and whether or not this action violates that. If his behavior violates their code of conduct then they are 100% justified in firing him, regardless of the legality of his actions.

No, the people who talk about "legality" are responding to the over-the-top comments calling for the guy to be jailed, and claiming the conduct to violate criminal law. Plainly, the act is not criminal.

It is, however, weird and strange and fetish-y, which skeeves people out. And in an ordered society, it's wrong.

As Boof02671 has been saying, workplace conduct doesn't have to rise to a criminal violation to be grounds for termination or discipline.

Now that the whole world knows about it, DL has to discipline the guy just as publicly, which was likely the intent of the person who posted it on Twitter rather than taking it DL or Frontier management, along with receiving the kind of group approbation that Twitter posters crave.

wjcandee wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

I was a union rep for 20 years at US Airways. Every airline has a posted rules of conduct. What he did would violate such policy and in this day and age he most certainly would be fired. And the company would be justified and have Just Cause to do so.

This isn’t about the law, this is about established, tested and long term rules of conduct.

That’s what many of you are failing to grasp.

If I was a woman and a flight attendant or a female pilot I would refuse to work with him.

I don't purport to know the rules at DL, but I completely-agree with you that the conduct creates a workplace issue AT DELTA where females would not and should not want to work with the guy, and clearly don't have to. Best way to solve the problem: buh-bye. I always knew you were a person of principle, Sir, from your other posts, and you reinforce that here with a very fine one.

Well thank you.

Waiting on a friend who works for Delta to ask her their corporate policy.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

[ if someone was following your wife around in a public place taking clandestine photos of her, you'd be ok with that?

Whether some random dude would be "okay with that" about his wife/daughter/Jada-Pinkett-Smith has nothing to do with whether something violates workplace rules. The point is: that's not the applicable standard.

I think we can put the discussion to rest, however, insofar as it's pretty clear DL has grounds to fire the guy if it wants to, for all sorts of reasons beyond whether some emotional husband would be "okay with that".

tjcab wrote:

kameleonten wrote:

Not going into the morality or speculation of what he did (which plenty of other users have above) - is what he did illegal? He is photographing externally visible, clothed body parts of a flight attendant in a public space (an aircraft) performing her work duties. There are a lot of arguments as to why he is or is not a creep and I am not making any conclusion as to that part but I am curious to know what the law says here. If he would be photographing her (full body) while doing a safety announcement, that is perfectly legal I presume (otherwise all the users photographing and filming the many events on aircraft that keep being posted on here and other places daily would be breaking the law). If he zooms in on her private parts while making that same safety announcement the case can certainly be made that he is a creep but is there a legal difference? If not, Delta could be the ones in legal trouble for wrongful termination if they let him go based on this (unless their employee manual has a hard or soft statement prohibiting these kind of actions when on duty/in uniform).

Totally agree with this statement. While I feel that his actions were very undoubtedly creepy and inappropriate (but that is my opinion and I don't know what his intentions were), we have to look at this from the legal point of view.

Again, the legal point of view doesn't matter here. Criminality is irrelevant. Delta can fire any employee they want as long as the reason falls within the parameters of the employment contract (if there is no employment cotract, they can be fired for any reason other than being part of protected class). Almost certainly there is a clause in the contract for causing reputational harm and/or breaking the code of conduct that will give Delta the justification it needs to fire this employee.

wjcandee wrote:

DoctorVenkman wrote:

[ if someone was following your wife around in a public place taking clandestine photos of her, you'd be ok with that?

Whether some random dude would be "okay with that" about his wife/daughter/Jada-Pinkett-Smith has nothing to do with whether something violates workplace rules. The point is: that's not the applicable standard.

I think we can put the discussion to rest, however, insofar as it's pretty clear DL has grounds to fire the guy if it wants to, for all sorts of reasons beyond whether some emotional husband would be "okay with that".

I was clearly pointing out their hypocrisy, and not making a legal case that "not being ok with it" is grounds for dismissal. Thanks for pointing out the obvious that a random person's opinion is irrelevant, though.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

Thanks for pointing out the obvious that a random person's opinion is irrelevant, though.

Random people's opinions seem to be the basis for an awful lot of drama and consequence these days, as they are given amplification through social media.

And as to you pointing out their hypocrisy: being a hypocrite doesn't necessarily mean that one's opinion is wrong.

In my view, far too many arguments over things these days do not pit ideas against ideas. Instead, the one person argues a principle, and the respondent says, essentially, "He's a bad guy because XYZ, so he's wrong." We will devolve quickly into a mess, which we're already seeing, if that method of analysis predominates.

wjcandee wrote:

hpff wrote:

They are required to prevent known sexual harassment in the workplace, the conduct is clearly harassment

I find it hard to understand how this is workplace sexual harassment. They're not colleagues, and this was done clandestinely. The victim didn't know it was happening, and likely never would have known it was happening if the sanctimonious person hadn't videoed the incident (perhaps with good intent) and then POSTED IT ON TWITTER (which was clearly done only to aggrandize herself and to virtue-signal). All she had to do is privately show the video to a Frontier manager at destination, and the privacy of the F/A would be protected. Or send it to DL's legal department or HR department. Instead, she splashed the woman's behind all over Twitter. NOW who is causing harm to the victim?

The way this was put on twitter was the twitter equivalent of mouthing the words in a room to prevent people from hearing it, but to communicate with one person specifically. Since there was an @Delta at the beginning of the tweet and @FlyFrontier, by default it doesn’t go into anyone’s feed, except Delta’s and Frontier’s. Someone other than the poster would’ve had to put effort to find this and publicize it. So claiming that the twitter filmer was doing this for attention is incorrect. How they did it would’ve garnered no attention by default, it was simply a way to send a video to delta quickly and easily.

Additionally the twitter user in question has 10 or so followers at this time. By twitter standards that’s nothing. So claiming wjcandee, claiming that this was for attention by the twitter poster is off the mark.

Boof02671 wrote:

An airplane isn’t a public area.

Boof02671 wrote:

You can’t represent your employer in a bad light in public.

So was he in public or not ? Cannot have it both ways.

zeke wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

An airplane isn’t a public area.

Boof02671 wrote:

You can’t represent your employer in a bad light in public.

So was he in a public or not ? Cannot have it both ways.

I’m finding it weird to agree with boof but he’s got it right.

From a legal standpoint, the airplane is private property, and isn’t public. There is no first amendment duty to protect speech there. (Though as a common carrier they do have to carry people.)

From a PR standpoint, the airplane cabin is a public place.

It’s two different cases here.

wjcandee wrote:

hpff wrote:

They are required to prevent known sexual harassment in the workplace, the conduct is clearly harassment

I find it hard to understand how this is workplace sexual harassment. They're not colleagues, and this was done clandestinely. The victim didn't know it was happening, and likely never would have known it was happening if the sanctimonious person hadn't videoed the incident (perhaps with good intent) and then POSTED IT ON TWITTER (which was clearly done only to aggrandize herself and to virtue-signal). All she had to do is privately show the video to a Frontier manager at destination, and the privacy of the F/A would be protected. Instead, she splashed the woman's behind all over Twitter. NOW who is causing harm to the victim?

Frontier has an obligation to protect its employees from harassment, i.e. from stuff like customers grabbing their butts, catcalls, no question. (There's case law on this kind of thing.) If customers were saying things like, "Turn this way baby so I can film your butt." of course that's harassment by third-parties that Frontier would have to take reasonable steps to discourage. And the way they would discourage it is by hammering Delta over its employee's conduct while traveling on a pass, which Delta cause DL to wreak vengeance on the offender, because pass privileges are a sensitive thing. But clandestine filming of one's employee by another company's employee seems pretty-remote to impose an obligation to protect on the part of Frontier, and a reciprocal obligation on DL.

An HR person might try to stretch the "policy" to cover this, but I think most lawyers would laugh. On the other hand, I'm often amazed by positions that other lawyers take -- well, not that they take them, that's their job, but that they BELIEVE them -- yikes!, so maybe not.

That's exactly why the law on harassment has been defined the way it's been - without getting into the specific legal definition it's generally unwelcome sexual conduct or creating an intimidating or offensive workplace environment, which this was and doesn't require any sort of specific relationship between the harasser and the victim. It's intentionally defined very broadly and why complaints are handled as if each one is unique. The HR policy would have been written to make sure it complies with that guidance and probably written by a big law firm. And 95% of this thread has gone, "yup, clearly offensive."

I wouldn't read too much into the relationship between the companies, either. If a passenger is creepily filming flight attendants and say is discovered before pushback you probably remove him from the plane. If your employee is on duty and commits harassment (or in this case is caught committing harassment - don't think the clandestine fact helps the former pilot at all here) the employer has to investigate the conduct and make a decision based on their policies/the requisite federal law.

zeke wrote:

So was he in public or not ? Cannot have it both ways.

Well, the definition of "public" is going to vary based on what law is being applied, right? You may be right that the same definition would need to apply in both cases. Haven't looked it up.

However, if the DL pilot in question, instead of creepily-videoing the FA's butt, rather stood in the aisle, dropped trousers and undies, and exposed his genitalia, dancing in the aisle as it flopped around for all to see, would that be the crime of exposing himself in a "public" place? Methinks so. Maybe the definition is different for that statute, but still...

slvrblt wrote:

Y'all are hilarious with your sanctimonious outrage. You don't know what this guy was thinking

We wish we didn’t.

LCDFlight wrote:

slvrblt wrote:

Y'all are hilarious with your sanctimonious outrage. You don't know what this guy was thinking

We wish we didn’t.

The guy's lawyer will say that he liked the skirt/shirt/shoes/hairstyle/sweater/whatever the FA was wearing and photographed it so he could find one for his girlfriend (or himself). We have the assumption by the seatmate who assumed she knew what he was doing, and the video informs confirmation bias.

OTOH, it's pretty-clear what he was doing.

Just got off the phone with my Delta crew member friend and what he allegedly did is against their Rules of Conduct.

Plus here is an example of something else.

A flight attendant in uniform non-revving was on her iPad or iPhone and was looking at Alt-Right webpages. A customer must have complained to Delta management and was called into her inflight manager’s office and was talked too. And don’t know if if this person was disciplined or not but was told in no certain terms not to view “questionable” web pages while flying.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

planecane wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

So again, based on this take, there is no point to having professional rules of conduct, much less enforcing them. Just throw the whole book out.

And it's pretty stunning for any adult to apparently not know the difference between glancing at someone's backside and leering at it. I can assure you almost any female relative or friend will be happy to explain the difference to you. And that's the other issue with your statement that 'neither gawking or taking photos are an issue in a public place' - again, this view only exists in a world where how ladies feel about being stared/leered at is immaterial. We do not live in that world, especially in setting company policy.

If he the video was of him leering at her backside (again, fully clothed, in public) would the reaction be the same? Or, what if he took the photos of a female passenger putting something in the overhead bin instead of an FA?

Professional rules of conduct are fine but I bet you won't find this scenario listed in Delta's. I have also said having some consequence like a suspension would be OK with me. My point this whole time has been that termination or arrest (for a crime that doesn't exist) is an over the top response to what the pilot did.

Losing your job for taking a photo of a fully clothed woman in a public place is not an appropriate consequence. If he was suspended and then warned that if he does that again he will be terminated then a second offense would be worthy of termination.

The reactions of many in this thread are just another example of cancel culture. If somebody says or does something that you think is "creepy" they should lose their livelihood without getting a chance to redeem themselves or learn from their mistake.

I'll ask you again, if someone was following your wife around in a public place taking clandestine photos of her, you'd be ok with that? You keep trying to downplay this since the FA was fully clothed in a public place, so I'm curious if you'd apply that same standard to your own life. I'm curious if you'd give the person taking photos of your wife a free pass and a chance to learn from their mistakes, or would you want them to face some sort of consequence?

"Following" around changes the scenario. In that case it becomes stalking and is no longer really about the picture. If he followed her through the airport to take more pictures it is different. If he kept getting on flights when he knew she would be working to take more pictures it is also different.

What happened in this incident does not, in my strong opinion, deserve termination as a consequence. She was not his subordinate nor was she employed at the same company so it doesn't create a hostile work environment for her in terms of sexual harassment legislation.

Frontier can definitely ban him from flying their airline to protect their employees from "creepy" behavior. Frontier would be taking action to prevent a hostile work environment. Delta, however, should not terminate him for this incident. There should be some kind of punishment and training to give the pilot a chance to learn from his mistake and change his behavior. Then, a 2nd offense of anything similar would deserve termination.

And it wouldn’t go to a lawyer.

Delta’s Pilots are unionized and work under a Collective Bargaining Agreement, it would fall under the Grievance Procedure in the CBA.

planecane wrote:

What happened in this incident does not, in my strong opinion, deserve termination as a consequence. She was not his subordinate nor was she employed at the same company so it doesn't create a hostile work environment for her in terms of sexual harassment legislation.

Your strong opinion is not the law. The law does not require you to be a subordinate or employed at the same company for it to constitute harassment. It's awful behavior and a clear fire-able offense.

planecane wrote:

DoctorVenkman wrote:

planecane wrote:

If he the video was of him leering at her backside (again, fully clothed, in public) would the reaction be the same? Or, what if he took the photos of a female passenger putting something in the overhead bin instead of an FA?

Professional rules of conduct are fine but I bet you won't find this scenario listed in Delta's. I have also said having some consequence like a suspension would be OK with me. My point this whole time has been that termination or arrest (for a crime that doesn't exist) is an over the top response to what the pilot did.

Losing your job for taking a photo of a fully clothed woman in a public place is not an appropriate consequence. If he was suspended and then warned that if he does that again he will be terminated then a second offense would be worthy of termination.

The reactions of many in this thread are just another example of cancel culture. If somebody says or does something that you think is "creepy" they should lose their livelihood without getting a chance to redeem themselves or learn from their mistake.

I'll ask you again, if someone was following your wife around in a public place taking clandestine photos of her, you'd be ok with that? You keep trying to downplay this since the FA was fully clothed in a public place, so I'm curious if you'd apply that same standard to your own life. I'm curious if you'd give the person taking photos of your wife a free pass and a chance to learn from their mistakes, or would you want them to face some sort of consequence?

"Following" around changes the scenario. In that case it becomes stalking and is no longer really about the picture. If he followed her through the airport to take more pictures it is different. If he kept getting on flights when he knew she would be working to take more pictures it is also different.

What happened in this incident does not, in my strong opinion, deserve termination as a consequence. She was not his subordinate nor was she employed at the same company so it doesn't create a hostile work environment for her in terms of sexual harassment legislation.

Frontier can definitely ban him from flying their airline to protect their employees from "creepy" behavior. Frontier would be taking action to prevent a hostile work environment. Delta, however, should not terminate him for this incident. There should be some kind of punishment and training to give the pilot a chance to learn from his mistake and change his behavior. Then, a 2nd offense of anything similar would deserve termination.

Everyone that has read this thread clearly understands your view that nothing was wrong with what this individual did. We get it. The majority of people also know that if you partake in activity like this while wearing your uniform that identifies your employer, your likely going to get fired. You don’t have to break laws to get fired.

Flflyer83 wrote:

planecane wrote:

DoctorVenkman wrote:

I'll ask you again, if someone was following your wife around in a public place taking clandestine photos of her, you'd be ok with that? You keep trying to downplay this since the FA was fully clothed in a public place, so I'm curious if you'd apply that same standard to your own life. I'm curious if you'd give the person taking photos of your wife a free pass and a chance to learn from their mistakes, or would you want them to face some sort of consequence?

"Following" around changes the scenario. In that case it becomes stalking and is no longer really about the picture. If he followed her through the airport to take more pictures it is different. If he kept getting on flights when he knew she would be working to take more pictures it is also different.

What happened in this incident does not, in my strong opinion, deserve termination as a consequence. She was not his subordinate nor was she employed at the same company so it doesn't create a hostile work environment for her in terms of sexual harassment legislation.

Frontier can definitely ban him from flying their airline to protect their employees from "creepy" behavior. Frontier would be taking action to prevent a hostile work environment. Delta, however, should not terminate him for this incident. There should be some kind of punishment and training to give the pilot a chance to learn from his mistake and change his behavior. Then, a 2nd offense of anything similar would deserve termination.

Everyone that has read this thread clearly understands your view that nothing was wrong with what this individual did. We get it. The majority of people also know that if you partake in activity like this while wearing your uniform that identifies your employer, your likely going to get fired. You don’t have to break laws to get fired.

People read selectively. I didn't ever say nothing was wrong. I said it didn't rise to the level of being terminated or arrested. I said there should be some consequence like a suspension. If you're going to "understand" my view then at least read it carefully.

planecane wrote:

Flflyer83 wrote:

planecane wrote:

"Following" around changes the scenario. In that case it becomes stalking and is no longer really about the picture. If he followed her through the airport to take more pictures it is different. If he kept getting on flights when he knew she would be working to take more pictures it is also different.

What happened in this incident does not, in my strong opinion, deserve termination as a consequence. She was not his subordinate nor was she employed at the same company so it doesn't create a hostile work environment for her in terms of sexual harassment legislation.

Frontier can definitely ban him from flying their airline to protect their employees from "creepy" behavior. Frontier would be taking action to prevent a hostile work environment. Delta, however, should not terminate him for this incident. There should be some kind of punishment and training to give the pilot a chance to learn from his mistake and change his behavior. Then, a 2nd offense of anything similar would deserve termination.

Everyone that has read this thread clearly understands your view that nothing was wrong with what this individual did. We get it. The majority of people also know that if you partake in activity like this while wearing your uniform that identifies your employer, your likely going to get fired. You don’t have to break laws to get fired.

People read selectively. I didn't ever say nothing was wrong. I said it didn't rise to the level of being terminated or arrested. I said there should be some consequence like a suspension. If you're going to "understand" my view then at least read it carefully.

According to Delta it does violate their rules of conduct and it can be a terminating offense. Go back and read my earlier post.

There may be laws that were violated, however what is clear to me is that respect in the workplace policies that any major company has - including Delta and Frontier - are applicable in this situation. The pilot was clandestinely (to his knowledge) focusing on legs and rear. I swear this is like debating if the sun rises in the east or not. The guy is a creep, he was incredibly disrespectful through his behavior to the flight attendant and has been subject to an investigation. Question for those of you thinking it’s much ado about nothing: how would you like a stranger taking similar pics of your wife, mother or daughter? Don’t lie. What would you think?

wjcandee wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

That's even worse: he could be charged for criminal actions.

I'm asking this seriously: what state or federal law do you think he violated? And if he did, would the person filming him, who recorded the same backside and then posted it on Twitter, also have committed an illegal act? I just can't think of one right now.

Is this whole plot even real? How can I make sure this is not just another piece of scripted reality spread by one of those agencies?

Boof02671 wrote:

planecane wrote:

Flflyer83 wrote:

Everyone that has read this thread clearly understands your view that nothing was wrong with what this individual did. We get it. The majority of people also know that if you partake in activity like this while wearing your uniform that identifies your employer, your likely going to get fired. You don’t have to break laws to get fired.

People read selectively. I didn't ever say nothing was wrong. I said it didn't rise to the level of being terminated or arrested. I said there should be some consequence like a suspension. If you're going to "understand" my view then at least read it carefully.

According to Delta it does violate their rules of conduct and it can be a terminating offense. Go back and read my earlier post.

I am not privy to the Delta employee policies. If you can quote the relevant policy it would be appreciated. If it is in writing and is specific then he can be terminated if they choose to do so.

planecane wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

planecane wrote:

People read selectively. I didn't ever say nothing was wrong. I said it didn't rise to the level of being terminated or arrested. I said there should be some consequence like a suspension. If you're going to "understand" my view then at least read it carefully.

According to Delta it does violate their rules of conduct and it can be a terminating offense. Go back and read my earlier post.

I am not privy to the Delta employee policies. If you can quote the relevant policy it would be appreciated. If it is in writing and is specific then he can be terminated if they choose to do so.

I cannot post it as it’s privy Delta. Spoke to two different Delta FA friends today and yes it’s a violation of their rules of conduct.

They cannot portray Delta in a negative light. He was using either Jumpseat or pass riding, both are benefits provided by Delta.

Just got off the phone with my Delta crew member friend and what he allegedly did is against their Rules of Conduct.

Plus here is an example of something else.

A flight attendant in uniform non-revving was on her iPad or iPhone and was looking at Alt-Right webpages. A customer must have complained to Delta management and was called into her inflight manager’s office and was talked too. And don’t know if if this person was disciplined or not but was told in no certain terms not to view “questionable” web pages while flying.