Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
LX015
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:58 pm

lightsaber wrote:
2175301 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
Our most comparable religious group here in the USA might be the Amish; they know what the modern world looks like, and they choose to live their lives in the old-fashioned way - normally abandoning the use of modern transport included. They do not expect everyone outside their religion to kowtow to their beliefs, or to change their ways to accommodate them. They maintain their traditions, but they respect others. To cling to provincial dogmas and to expect everyone else around you to entertain you is an anathema the civilized peoples of the world as a whole.


I believe you are correct. I know for a fact that while the Amish chose not to use automobiles and other things... that in an emergency situation for for long distance business travel will allow themselves to be transported in automobiles, or use modern medical technology and other things. They have their preference; but, do recognize that they need to make exceptions for certain situations.

Have a great day,

The Amish are different. My grandfather was permanently barred from their communities at least four times. He would seize children for emergency medical reasons (appendectomy, measles, pneumonia, always a good reason) intern them in the Navy hospital (he was a Navy surgeon back then), treat them, then, when no longer in need of prohibited medications (e.g., if Aspirin was enough, send them home, even if they wouldn't take it), return the child to the parents.

That is different. He was always having a dinner in an Amish home within 30 days of his permanent prohibition from entering the communities, although he would have to stand in front of the community and explain his reasoning for seizing a child (not a problem, always initiated by concerned Amish).

The dinner invites often specifically excluded his wife. Sometimes he would refuse because of that, sometimes he would join as he was assigned by the Navy to help oversee their communities medical needs. (This was post WW2 and many Amish were medics). But they were always polite to my Nana. I inherited the desk and paintings she bought from them. They were professional to her in the hospital (she was a Navy nurse). They were 'proper' to her when she was a customer. We accepted the interactions in their home was on their terms. When having to ride in an ambulance, they were the 'parent passenger.' (Mock protesting... to say the least, on having to ride a forbidden convenience.)

When on transit (the plane), there must be respect for other passengers. As a father of daughters, I wouldn't accept one having to move from a paid for assigned seat.

Lightsaber


"He would seize children..."

Wow.
 
JAGflyer
Posts: 3577
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:31 am

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:08 pm

zeke wrote:

It was not the person, it is their religious belief. No different to say a person of Muslim belief not being able to take pork products, or Buddhists taking beef products, it is not the person themselves that cannot handle these food products, it is their religious beliefs, and airlines have to accommodate that.

This is a two way street, submitting yourself to being transported by an airline means you agree that would agree to abide by their policies, that would also mean their non discrimination by travel policy.


With the exception of several carriers in the Middle East, all airlines operate in a non-religious manner with no priority or special treatment based on one's religion. If your religion requires something non-standard/out of the ordinary it is up to YOU to ensure that accommodation for yourself, not a secular airline's. Whether it's pre-ordering a religious meal or somehow ensuring you have an empty seat next to you because you cannot sit next to a non-familial woman. If you want to live your life based around holy books and obscure rules from thousands of years ago, you're free to do so, at your own expense and in your own private space. Reasonable accommodation only goes so far and asking a person to move because of their gender is entirely unreasonable. For your information, I am a Jew and stand 100% behind this lady.
If you flew today, thank a Flight Dispatcher!
 
opticalilyushin
Posts: 801
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:35 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:10 pm

Given this type of incident has happened on many flights to and from TLV, i wonder could some airlines help mitigate the issue by using some sort of seating formula on these select flights. It would not be fool-proof, but it could help in seating single or 2 party males or females in the same row, after any large parties, families and pre-booked seats are taken into account, of course.
 
sabby
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:13 pm

Those who are claiming that the person was in the right to object to sit next to a woman due to religious freedom, I'd like to point out that they were not forced to sit next to a woman, they were "free" to pay up and book additional seat(s) beforehand to make sure they wouldn't have to sit next to a woman.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:52 pm

JAGflyer wrote:
If your religion requires something non-standard/out of the ordinary it is up to YOU to ensure that accommodation for yourself, not a secular airline's. Whether it's pre-ordering a religious meal or somehow ensuring you have an empty seat next to you because you cannot sit next to a non-familial woman. If you want to live your life based around holy books and obscure rules from thousands of years ago, you're free to do so, at your own expense and in your own private space. Reasonable accommodation only goes so far and asking a person to move because of their gender is entirely unreasonable. For your information, I am a Jew and stand 100% behind this lady.



What you are posting is not correct, in fact the UN charter on the matter specifically spells out that minority religious groups cannot be discriminated or disadvantaged in private or public. An airline cannot force a passenger to purchase an empty seat because of their religious belief, nor can they charge extra for a special meal (Disadvantage), the airline must accommodate everyone reasonably.

There was nothing unreasonable in my view here. What you and others have claimed, which is not in evidence is the passenger was relocated on the first instance because of the gender they identified with, the UN does not say gender equality is above freedom of religion, they are both equal. If the airline accommodated the passengers best they could given the conflicting demands good for them. What I am seeing on this thread multiple times over is it’s okay pick on a minority based upon religion, it was not ok in WW2, and it’s not okay today for the CCP to use 3.5 million people who are are a minority as Covid vaccine guinea pigs. This remind me of Hal in a “Few Good Men” as the responsibility is incumbent upon the majority to protect the minority who can’t protect themselves.

Not once have I expressed if I agree of disagree with these people religious beliefs, nor have I tried to sway opinions by claimIng I am from a minority. There is no clear answer here, both viewpoints have to be accommodated.

What I disagree with is the assertion that a passenger was in the first instance relocated because the gender they identified with, it was to accommodate two other passengers religious beliefs. It may seem like semantics, however is it the key point.

This is the relevant excerpts from the UN Charter https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalIn ... ities.aspx

Article 1

1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.

2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.

Article 2

1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.

2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.

3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.

4. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.

5. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.

Article 3

1. Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights, including those set forth in the present Declaration, individually as well as in community with other members of their group, without any discrimination.

2. No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration.
Last edited by zeke on Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:09 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20603
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:57 pm

LX015 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
2175301 wrote:

I believe you are correct. I know for a fact that while the Amish chose not to use automobiles and other things... that in an emergency situation for for long distance business travel will allow themselves to be transported in automobiles, or use modern medical technology and other things. They have their preference; but, do recognize that they need to make exceptions for certain situations.

Have a great day,

The Amish are different. My grandfather was permanently barred from their communities at least four times. He would seize children for emergency medical reasons (appendectomy, measles, pneumonia, always a good reason) intern them in the Navy hospital (he was a Navy surgeon back then), treat them, then, when no longer in need of prohibited medications (e.g., if Aspirin was enough, send them home, even if they wouldn't take it), return the child to the parents.

That is different. He was always having a dinner in an Amish home within 30 days of his permanent prohibition from entering the communities, although he would have to stand in front of the community and explain his reasoning for seizing a child (not a problem, always initiated by concerned Amish).

The dinner invites often specifically excluded his wife. Sometimes he would refuse because of that, sometimes he would join as he was assigned by the Navy to help oversee their communities medical needs. (This was post WW2 and many Amish were medics). But they were always polite to my Nana. I inherited the desk and paintings she bought from them. They were professional to her in the hospital (she was a Navy nurse). They were 'proper' to her when she was a customer. We accepted the interactions in their home was on their terms. When having to ride in an ambulance, they were the 'parent passenger.' (Mock protesting... to say the least, on having to ride a forbidden convenience.)

When on transit (the plane), there must be respect for other passengers. As a father of daughters, I wouldn't accept one having to move from a paid for assigned seat.

Lightsaber


"He would seize children..."

Wow.


His job, as surgery was a part time need, was to go door to door and give the doctor medical exams to Amish veterans and the children of the community. Since they weren't vacinated, he had to get measles cases out immediately to prevent too many children from becoming medical imbiciles. Recall, that is still the fate of many who catch measles, even today. He saved a few children from appendicitis too and a few bad infections that required hospitalization.

As noted, they mock protested and he was welcome into their homes. He even had a group visit him in Texas when he later retired there. It was a game of having an outsider break the rules to save their children.

When religion effects other's rights or safety, processes must be setup. This case, the religious rights end at their seat. For my grandfather, preventing outbreaks from unvaccinated communities from spreading (recall, vaccines are not fully effective, even less back then).

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
LX015
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:18 pm

lightsaber wrote:
LX015 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The Amish are different. My grandfather was permanently barred from their communities at least four times. He would seize children for emergency medical reasons (appendectomy, measles, pneumonia, always a good reason) intern them in the Navy hospital (he was a Navy surgeon back then), treat them, then, when no longer in need of prohibited medications (e.g., if Aspirin was enough, send them home, even if they wouldn't take it), return the child to the parents.

That is different. He was always having a dinner in an Amish home within 30 days of his permanent prohibition from entering the communities, although he would have to stand in front of the community and explain his reasoning for seizing a child (not a problem, always initiated by concerned Amish).

The dinner invites often specifically excluded his wife. Sometimes he would refuse because of that, sometimes he would join as he was assigned by the Navy to help oversee their communities medical needs. (This was post WW2 and many Amish were medics). But they were always polite to my Nana. I inherited the desk and paintings she bought from them. They were professional to her in the hospital (she was a Navy nurse). They were 'proper' to her when she was a customer. We accepted the interactions in their home was on their terms. When having to ride in an ambulance, they were the 'parent passenger.' (Mock protesting... to say the least, on having to ride a forbidden convenience.)

When on transit (the plane), there must be respect for other passengers. As a father of daughters, I wouldn't accept one having to move from a paid for assigned seat.

Lightsaber


"He would seize children..."

Wow.


His job, as surgery was a part time need, was to go door to door and give the doctor medical exams to Amish veterans and the children of the community. Since they weren't vacinated, he had to get measles cases out immediately to prevent too many children from becoming medical imbiciles. Recall, that is still the fate of many who catch measles, even today. He saved a few children from appendicitis too and a few bad infections that required hospitalization.

As noted, they mock protested and he was welcome into their homes. He even had a group visit him in Texas when he later retired there. It was a game of having an outsider break the rules to save their children.

When religion effects other's rights or safety, processes must be setup. This case, the religious rights end at their seat. For my grandfather, preventing outbreaks from unvaccinated communities from spreading (recall, vaccines are not fully effective, even less back then).

Lightsaber


I completely understand what your grandfather was doing and what he had to go through to do so. Good on him for making that effort and helping that community. It's just the manner in which you worded it caught my attention and raised my eyebrows.
 
DH106
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:38 pm

zeke wrote:
JAGflyer wrote:
If your religion requires something non-standard/out of the ordinary it is up to YOU to ensure that accommodation for yourself, not a secular airline's. Whether it's pre-ordering a religious meal or somehow ensuring you have an empty seat next to you because you cannot sit next to a non-familial woman. If you want to live your life based around holy books and obscure rules from thousands of years ago, you're free to do so, at your own expense and in your own private space. Reasonable accommodation only goes so far and asking a person to move because of their gender is entirely unreasonable. For your information, I am a Jew and stand 100% behind this lady.



What you are posting is not correct, in fact the UN charter on the matter specifically spells out that minority religious groups cannot be discriminated or disadvantaged in private or public. An airline cannot force a passenger to purchase an empty seat because of their religious belief, nor can they charge extra for a special meal (Disadvantage), the airline must accommodate everyone reasonably.

There was nothing unreasonable in my view here. What you and others have claimed, which is not in evidence is the passenger was relocated on the first instance because of the gender they identified with, the UN does not say gender equality is above freedom of religion, they are both equal. If the airline accommodated the passengers best they could given the conflicting demands good for them. What I am seeing on this thread multiple times over is it’s okay pick on a minority based upon religion, it was not ok in WW2, and it’s not okay today for the CCP to use 3.5 million people who are are a minority as Covid vaccine guinea pigs. This remind me of Hal in a “Few Good Men” as the responsibility is incumbent upon the majority to protect the minority who can’t protect themselves.

Not once have I expressed if I agree of disagree with these people religious beliefs, nor have I tried to sway opinions by claimIng I am from a minority. There is no clear answer here, both viewpoints have to be accommodated.

What I disagree with is the assertion that a passenger was in the first instance relocated because the gender they identified with, it was to accommodate two other passengers religious beliefs. It may seem like semantics, however is it the key point.

This is the relevant excerpts from the UN Charter https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalIn ... ities.aspx

Article 1

1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.

2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.

Article 2

1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.

2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.

3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.

4. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.

5. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.

Article 3

1. Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights, including those set forth in the present Declaration, individually as well as in community with other members of their group, without any discrimination.

2. No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration.




But these orthodox Jews are not being discriminated against compared to other fliers - no other flier would have rights to contol a seat they didn't buy. They are in fact asking for extra privilege over and above other the fliers, and where that impinges on other fliers' rights (the lady in this case), a line surely has to be drawn.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:40 pm

Actually, the linked article states it occurred in Israel, prior to departure for London. Israel is in Western Asia.


I'm quite aware of where Israel is located. Obviously. There's no need for you to be pedantic. However, since you engaged me the court case has been filed in a European country, and as Easyjet is a British carrier, the incident occurred in the United Kingdom for purposes of jurisdiction.

There, fixed it for you.
 
argentinevol98
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:40 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:42 pm

2175301 wrote:

I believe you are correct. I know for a fact that while the Amish chose not to use automobiles and other things... that in an emergency situation for for long distance business travel will allow themselves to be transported in automobiles, or use modern medical technology and other things. They have their preference; but, do recognize that they need to make exceptions for certain situations.

Have a great day,


On that point, I took an evacuation flight out of Bolivia in April (COVID lockdown reasons) and there was an Amish family on the leg of the flight out of VVI to the US. We arrived in MIA at night and I self-connected on the next flight out to PHL and the same family was aboard that flight as well. There is a large Amish/Mennonite community in the Santa Cruz department of Bolivia, and of course a huge Amish community in Pennsylvania so that probably accounts for that. Although, it does seem odd that US Amish made it down to Bolivia and hence had to be returned. Maybe there is some kind of international Amish exchange? Regardless, they clearly chose to use modern technology to get to and from South America and the US. We had no issues on either flight with any kind of discrimination or the like; the family, while keeping to themselves and clearly following some differing social norms, engaged in no sort of discriminatory behavior and no one did it to them either.

I admit that an enjoyable part was seeing the kids (there were I think seven of them) staring out the terminal windows at MIA onto the runway/hangars in totally absorbed fascination. That much advanced tech all in one place is probably a fairly uncommon sight for those kids.
"He sospechado alguna vez que la única cosa sin misterio es la felicidad, porque se justifica por sí sola"-Jorge Luis Borges
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 988
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 5:53 pm

Retaliation wrote:
'Religious Class' should be introduced in Flights to such destinations.


MH used to have a prayer room on their 744s. I'm not sure if they still do.
 
eurotrader85
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:45 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:12 pm

zeke wrote:
JAGflyer wrote:
If your religion requires something non-standard/out of the ordinary it is up to YOU to ensure that accommodation for yourself, not a secular airline's. Whether it's pre-ordering a religious meal or somehow ensuring you have an empty seat next to you because you cannot sit next to a non-familial woman. If you want to live your life based around holy books and obscure rules from thousands of years ago, you're free to do so, at your own expense and in your own private space. Reasonable accommodation only goes so far and asking a person to move because of their gender is entirely unreasonable. For your information, I am a Jew and stand 100% behind this lady.



What you are posting is not correct, in fact the UN charter on the matter specifically spells out that minority religious groups cannot be discriminated or disadvantaged in private or public. An airline cannot force a passenger to purchase an empty seat because of their religious belief, nor can they charge extra for a special meal (Disadvantage), the airline must accommodate everyone reasonably.

There was nothing unreasonable in my view here. What you and others have claimed, which is not in evidence is the passenger was relocated on the first instance because of the gender they identified with, the UN does not say gender equality is above freedom of religion, they are both equal. If the airline accommodated the passengers best they could given the conflicting demands good for them. What I am seeing on this thread multiple times over is it’s okay pick on a minority based upon religion, it was not ok in WW2, and it’s not okay today for the CCP to use 3.5 million people who are are a minority as Covid vaccine guinea pigs. This remind me of Hal in a “Few Good Men” as the responsibility is incumbent upon the majority to protect the minority who can’t protect themselves.

Not once have I expressed if I agree of disagree with these people religious beliefs, nor have I tried to sway opinions by claimIng I am from a minority. There is no clear answer here, both viewpoints have to be accommodated.

What I disagree with is the assertion that a passenger was in the first instance relocated because the gender they identified with, it was to accommodate two other passengers religious beliefs. It may seem like semantics, however is it the key point.

This is the relevant excerpts from the UN Charter https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalIn ... ities.aspx

Article 1

1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.

2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.

Article 2

1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.

2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.

3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.

4. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.

5. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.

Article 3

1. Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights, including those set forth in the present Declaration, individually as well as in community with other members of their group, without any discrimination.

2. No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration.


This situation is hardly in the spirit of the UN resolution on the freedom of the rights of people belonging to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority you are trying to quote. Under such point I could start a religion tomorrow saying no one can be within 50 meters of me and you are saying the airline has to accommodate, at least at best. If I buy a first class ticket, does that mean other first class passengers must boot down to Business or lower to accommodate me while I roam around in my own world? I think not, nor should they. I should just get my own jet.

Indeed Article 4 of the very resolution you quote states: "States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards." In this case the woman being discriminated against because of her gender is in direct violation of Israeli anti-discrimination law on gender and is certainly against international standards.


Sense should prevail here and EZ adopt the same policy as El Al “Passengers who decline to sit next to someone based on religious or other reasons will be pulled from the plane.”
Last edited by eurotrader85 on Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:38 pm

eurotrader85 wrote:

Indeed Article 4 of the very resolution you quote states: "States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards." In this case the woman being discriminated against because of her gender is in direct violation of Israeli anti-discrimination law on gender and is certainly against international standards.


You cannot read article 4 in isolation, these UN articles are adopted in national law around the world.

Show me the law which states gender discrimination takes precedent over freedom of religion, race

eurotrader85 wrote:
Sense should prevail here and EZ adopt the same policy as El Al “Passengers who decline to sit next to someone based on religious or other reasons will be pulled from the plane.”


Show me the policy which states that.

This is what the El Al conditions of carriage state, which is pretty typical of all airlines, seats maybe allocated at any time including after boarding.

“ We will endeavour to honour advance seating bookings, however, we cannot guarantee any particular seat. We reserve the right to assign or reassign seats at any time, even after boarding of the aircraft. This may be necessary for operational, safety, security or other reasonable reasons. In the event that we shall allocate a specific seat that you purchased as aforesaid, and we move you, at our initiative, to a seat in its vicinity, which entails no payment, you will be entitled, as a sole and exclusive remedy, to a refund of the amount paid for the reallocated seat. ”
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 7:32 pm

If the person request an accomodation that's one thing in this case it was disadvantaging another individual to make this accommodation. The correct solution in this case would be to move the people with the need not the other way around.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:55 pm

Discrimination is differential treatment, that a person is treated worse than others are, have been, or would have been treated, in a similar situation, due to circumstances as gender, ethnicity, religion or other beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age or combinations of these circumstances. Ethnicity includes, among other things, national origin, descent, skin color and language.

You are not discriminating anyone when you treat everyone equally, even if it isn't in accordance with someone's customs, practices, identity, beliefs or religion etc. Positive differential treatment is not discrimination.

Under the apartheid regime in South-Africa, entrances, seats on public transport, benches in parks etc. were clearly marked with "White/European" or "Black". The white minority had strong beliefs (some would call it a religion) of white superiority. Having some change seats due to their gender is no different than having someone change seats due to the colour of their skin.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 10:58 pm

zeke wrote:
eurotrader85 wrote:
Indeed Article 4 of the very resolution you quote states: "States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards." In this case the woman being discriminated against because of her gender is in direct violation of Israeli anti-discrimination law on gender and is certainly against international standards.

You cannot read article 4 in isolation,

Zeke, it seems to me that you are the one reading specific articles in isolation.
Article 4 is there for a reason.
zeke wrote:
....these UN articles are adopted in national law around the world
Including article 4. :banghead:

Indeed, as is this section in Article 8

Article 8
2. The exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration shall not prejudice the enjoyment by all persons of universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.


zeke wrote:
Show me the law which states gender discrimination takes precedent over freedom of religion, race

I'll see your cheap shot, with an equally cheap reply; Show me the law which states religious freedom takes precedent over gender equality.
So what do we do now? Toss a coin to see who has to move seats?


eurotrader85 wrote:
Sense should prevail here and EZ adopt the same policy as El Al “Passengers who decline to sit next to someone based on religious or other reasons will be pulled from the plane.”

zeke wrote:
Show me the policy which states that.

This is what the El Al conditions of carriage state, which is pretty typical of all airlines, seats maybe allocated at any time including after boarding.

“ We will endeavour to honour advance seating bookings, however, we cannot guarantee any particular seat. We reserve the right to assign or reassign seats at any time, even after boarding of the aircraft. This may be necessary for operational, safety, security or other reasonable reasons. In the event that we shall allocate a specific seat that you purchased as aforesaid, and we move you, at our initiative, to a seat in its vicinity, which entails no payment, you will be entitled, as a sole and exclusive remedy, to a refund of the amount paid for the reallocated seat. ”

An Israeli and a Dutch court have already ruled that this is not covered under "operational, safety or security" and it most definitely isn't reasonable.
It is only a matter of time until an English court adds it's verdict.
You've lost this argument already.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:26 pm

zeke wrote:
This is what the El Al conditions of carriage state, which is pretty typical of all airlines, seats maybe allocated at any time including after boarding.

“ We will endeavour to honour advance seating bookings, however, we cannot guarantee any particular seat. We reserve the right to assign or reassign seats at any time, even after boarding of the aircraft. This may be necessary for operational, safety, security or other reasonable reasons. In the event that we shall allocate a specific seat that you purchased as aforesaid, and we move you, at our initiative, to a seat in its vicinity, which entails no payment, you will be entitled, as a sole and exclusive remedy, to a refund of the amount paid for the reallocated seat. ”


This is correct - and Israel has already decided that prejudice, whether based on an outdated religious dogma or personal preconception, is not a "reasonable reason". There is no reason to keep arguing it - unless you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. It is settled.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
WBM
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:18 am

I think it best if we try to find a way to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. I use the word tolerant, because I happen to disagree with the beliefs of the passengers in question. Even though I do not like their beliefs, I believe they should be allowed to live there lives as they choose. As a society, I think we should try to make reasonable accommodation for those with different practices than the norm.

My solution for these situations would be to treat the request for a change of seats like any other request for change of seats. Requests for a change of seat happen everyday. In this case I think it is much better if they move the passengers who made the request. Also if anyone ends up in a worse seat, it should be the person who made the request. In cases like these the request should be just that, a request. If other passengers do not want to accommodate, they should not have to. If someone asked me to make a change of seats, and the new seat is no worse than the one I have, I would likely make the change.

If the passengers cannot be reasonably accommodated, then they should have to wait for the next flight, to see if they can make it work. Where I disagree with most of the posters is that I think that should be more of a last resort, than a first resort.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:01 am

zeke wrote:
FGITD wrote:
Your religious freedom ends where my space begins. If I'm sitting in a seat and the person next to me has a belief that they can't sit next to me, that's their problem to make peace with, not mine


The airline has the obligation to accommodate all passengers regardless of race, religion, or gender they identify as.

A passenger has no right over any space in an aircraft, they will be accommodated as reasonably directed by the airline.


Zeke, I've read everything you wrote.

Question: Suppose someone had a religious belief that they could not sit next to race X on an airline. They asked the airline to move a member of race X because that person was race X and sitting next to that person was a sin. What would you have the airline do?
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:42 am

ChrisEtihad272 wrote:
They should of kicked the Man and his son off instead. this is why Tui stopped doing TLV From Manchester, complete nightmare to seat passengers


Is there any link you could provide to back this up? Feels a bit sensationalist to claim an airline stopped flying a (presumably profitable as profitability doesn't seem the issue) route because they had issues seating passengers?
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:46 am

Ziyulu wrote:
The problem is buying a 3rd seat does not guarantee it will remain empty since airlines oversell flights all the time.

But surely then it WILL become the airline's issue to sort out?
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:50 am

WBM wrote:
I think it best if we try to find a way to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. I use the word tolerant, because I happen to disagree with the beliefs of the passengers in question. Even though I do not like their beliefs, I believe they should be allowed to live there lives as they choose. As a society, I think we should try to make reasonable accommodation for those with different practices than the norm.

My solution for these situations would be to treat the request for a change of seats like any other request for change of seats. Requests for a change of seat happen everyday. In this case I think it is much better if they move the passengers who made the request. Also if anyone ends up in a worse seat, it should be the person who made the request. In cases like these the request should be just that, a request. If other passengers do not want to accommodate, they should not have to. If someone asked me to make a change of seats, and the new seat is no worse than the one I have, I would likely make the change.

If the passengers cannot be reasonably accommodated, then they should have to wait for the next flight, to see if they can make it work. Where I disagree with most of the posters is that I think that should be more of a last resort, than a first resort.


I agree with you but the challenge here is that you cannot accommodate someone's religious needs without discriminating against another person. Would it not be the responsibility of the person who has the issue to solve it? In all fairness it sounds like they did try but the fact remains that there is no hierarchy of discrimination.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:24 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I'll see your cheap shot, with an equally cheap reply; Show me the law which states religious freedom takes precedent over gender equality.
So what do we do now? Toss a coin to see who has to move seats?


I have stated numerous times that one form of discrimination or disadvantage does not take preference over another. There is no evidence presented to suggest the airline first moved the passenger based upon their gender.

kitplane01 wrote:
Question: Suppose someone had a religious belief that they could not sit next to race X on an airline. They asked the airline to move a member of race X because that person was race X and sitting next to that person was a sin. What would you have the airline do?


All airlines are required to take reasonable steps to accommodate everyone inclusively, it does present cureveballs from time to time which everyone tries to handle sensitively. Airlines in their conditions of carriage state that the airline can reassign their seating location for anyone even after boarding. That is something every passenger will have voluntarily agreed to when purchasing their ticket, which is why I am perplexed by this situation. The passenger would have already agreed to the possibility of being relocated.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10900
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:33 pm

zeke wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I'll see your cheap shot, with an equally cheap reply; Show me the law which states religious freedom takes precedent over gender equality.
So what do we do now? Toss a coin to see who has to move seats?


I have stated numerous times that one form of discrimination or disadvantage does not take preference over another. There is no evidence presented to suggest the airline first moved the passenger based upon their gender.


??? The entire reason she was moved was because of her gender. If she was a male the two passengers sitting next to her would have no issue.

As someone else mentioned your rights when you buy a seat only extend as far as your seat does. Her being next to them is not a form of religious discrimination. Moving her because she a female is gender discrimination. If the two passengers were moved because the lady had an issue sitting next to Orthodox Jews that would be religious discrimination.

It’s baffling that airlines continue to make these mistakes when the solution is simple. You move the person making the request (you DONT move the person next to the people making the request) or you let them deplane and offer a refund/alternative flight option. It’s that simple.

Airlines in their conditions of carriage state that the airline can reassign their seating location for anyone even after boarding. That is something every passenger will have voluntarily agreed to when purchasing their ticket, which is why I am perplexed by this situation. The passenger would have already agreed to the possibility of being relocated.

Just because an airline writes in their contract of carriage that the passenger’s seating position can be reassigned doesn’t actually mean the airline has the blanket right to move passengers around willy nilly for whatever reason they want. Airlines must still follow the anti-discrimination laws of their home country. American Airlines, for example, can’t decide to move all black people to the back of the plane and all white people to the front then go “but the contract of carriage says we can reassign seats!!!” when they are sued. In this case they should have moved the two passengers making the request and not the passenger that was upsetting to them.
Last edited by Polot on Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
ChrisEtihad272
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 1:38 am

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:50 pm

Westerwaelder wrote:
ChrisEtihad272 wrote:
They should of kicked the Man and his son off instead. this is why Tui stopped doing TLV From Manchester, complete nightmare to seat passengers


Is there any link you could provide to back this up? Feels a bit sensationalist to claim an airline stopped flying a (presumably profitable as profitability doesn't seem the issue) route because they had issues seating passengers?


why do you need a link, i worked for Thomsonfly at this time and i am telling you it was a nightmare, all male cabin crew, seating plan was difficult. why would of they stopped it if it was really good and profitable
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20603
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:18 pm

Polot wrote:
It’s baffling that airlines continue to make these mistakes when the solution is simple. You move the person making the request (you DONT move the person next to the people making the request) or you let them deplane and offer a refund/alternative flight option. It’s that simple.

That needs to be the policy. And no upgrade. :devil:

To others:
If people can get away making requests, they will do what is in their best interest. "If it saves me a penny, I don't care if it costs you a pound" is a notorious phrase of the selfish. Make it so they are accommodated in a fashion that includes, sorry, you cannot make this flight, 500 euro more for an upgrade or here is your refund.

Stop the madness. Ones rights on an aircraft are at one's seat. Since the woman paid for seat selection, she has her seat.

How many left behind passengers before news gets around and those that are not profitable passengers go elsewhere?

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2877
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:28 pm

Wouldn't it have been funny if the female pax who was asked to move had replied, "but I self-identify as a man"!
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 988
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:31 pm

eta unknown wrote:
Wouldn't it have been funny if the female pax who was asked to move had replied, "but I self-identify as a man"!


Ask to see if the female pax has a penis.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:36 pm

Polot wrote:
??? The entire reason she was moved was because of her gender.


No it wasn't. it was due to the religious beliefs of other passengers. What is glaring obvious to myself and I guess anyone else that has been to that part of the world is this is not unusual, it would be a well practiced regular social norm there. For example Nordau beach is open to women only on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday, and on Monday, Wednesday and Friday the beach is designated for men only.

I would hazard to guess every passenger flight I’ve ever flown, passengers switch seats. Sometimes it’s for a window view, or for leg room on the aisle, or to sit with a friend, spouse or child if they were assigned separate seats. In most of these scenarios, the arrangements are made and the requests are simply accommodated by the passengers. It is only with these FORB seat-switchers that we are asked to analyze the motivation for the request and judge whether it’s worthy of accommodation. The airline is required to reasonably accommodate everyone, it has no choice. I am a tolerant and inclusive person, it seems more like underhanded antisemitism.

Polot wrote:
Her being next to them is not a form of religious discrimination.


Actually it would, as the FORB means people can practice their beliefs in public. It i. s unclear to me what the passenger was wearing, however under some beliefs touching a female in public is forbidden, even if they are your wife.

Polot wrote:
Moving her because she a female is gender discrimination.


No, as they airline didn't move her because of her gender, the reason for the move was to do with two other passengers and not with her. The test for this is if she would had been asked to move if they other passengers were not there, if the answer is no, the airline did not move her because of her gender.

Polot wrote:
You move the person making the request (you DONT move the person next to the people making the request) or you let them deplane and offer a refund/alternative flight option. It’s that simple.


It isnt that easy, and asking them to deplane would not be reasonable if there were alternatives to accommodate them.

Just because an airline writes in their contract of carriage that the passenger’s seating position can be reassigned doesn’t actually mean the airline has the blanket right to move passengers around willy nilly for whatever reason they want.


They can for any reasonable request, in order to inclusively accommodate all passengers booked on the flight it is a reasonable request. Like I said above, people switch seats all the time, why is this newsworthy at all.

Polot wrote:
American Airlines, for example, can’t decide to move all black people to the back of the plane and all white people to the front then go “but the contract of carriage says we can reassign seats!!!” when they are sued.


That clearly would not be reasonable.

Polot wrote:
In this case they should have moved the two passengers making the request and not the passenger that was upsetting to them.


How do you know they didnt try that as well and what happened was the most reasonable solution ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
FGITD
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:55 pm

A lot of that post is coming off with a vibe that she can’t be discriminated against because she’s just a woman. You hint at others being slightly antisemitic while giving off an air of your own gender discrimination.

To say that it's ok to move her because of their beliefs, not because she is a woman is extremely belittling to her rights.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10900
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:59 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
??? The entire reason she was moved was because of her gender.


No it wasn't. it was due to the religious beliefs of other passengers. What is glaring obvious to myself and I guess anyone else that has been to that part of the world is this is not unusual, it would be a well practiced regular social norm there.

And the entire reason it was a religious issue is because she is a woman. So when looking at her, someone who is not part of the religion, it is gender discrimination because she has to give up her selected seat just because she is a women and that unfortunately made someone else uncomfortable. She has the right to deny moving. It doesn’t have to be put on her to give up seat or get off flight.


For example Nordau beach is open to women only on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday, and on Monday, Wednesday and Friday the beach is designated for men only.

What is ‘normal’ in that part of the world doesn’t matter. Airlines must follow their home country’s laws. If that is an issue perhaps the passengers should stick to El Al and not Easyjet.

Actually it would, as the FORB means people can practice their beliefs in public. It i. s unclear to me what the passenger was wearing, however under some beliefs touching a female in public is forbidden, even if they are your wife.

Nobody was stopping them from practicing their beliefs. They were free to move to different seats or get off the plane. Nobody was forcing them to sit in their original seats next to a women and to shut up.

zeke wrote:
No, as they airline didn't move her because of her gender, the reason for the move was to do with two other passengers and not with her. The test for this is if she would had been asked to move if they other passengers were not there, if the answer is no, the airline did not move her because of her gender.

Passengers have no right to make other passengers move. I don’t like sitting next to screaming babies. That doesn’t mean I can force a mother sitting next to me with a baby to move. You have to look at why they were being asked to move, and ultimately it is gender discrimination because she was a women and that made the person next to her uncomfortable. If I’m a KKK member can I force a black person next to me to move because I don’t feel comfortable being next to them? After all if any other passenger was there they would not be asked to move, so clearly my request isn’t racial discrimination.

zeke wrote:
It isnt that easy, and asking them to deplane would not be reasonable if there were alternatives to accommodate them.

When it comes to following the law you follow it. You don’t do “what’s easy”. If that makes things slightly more complicated for the airline/FA that’s too bad.
zeke wrote:
They can for any reasonable request, in order to inclusively accommodate all passengers booked on the flight it is a reasonable request. Like I said above, people switch seats all the time, why is this newsworthy at all.

Airlines must follow anti-discrimination laws full stop. There is no “reasonable request” when it comes to it. Airlines (Or any company) are not allowed to break anti-discrimination law in the act of carrying out areasonable request. “Reasonable request” is just legalese to protect the company (and consumer) from having to follow outrageous requests that technically don’t break any laws.

zeke wrote:
That clearly would not be reasonable.


Yes, because it is against anti-discrimination laws.

zeke wrote:
How do you know they didnt try that as well and what happened was the most reasonable solution ?

Again when fulfilling a reasonable request you cannot break anti-discrimination laws, inadvertently or not. Even if doing some would make accommodating the original requester easier for the airline.



You don’t seem to get the woman didn’t volunteer to move. People switch seats all the time and as long everyone willingly agrees with it, and recognizes that they are not required to accept the seat move, then it’s ok. It’s when you are forcing third parties to accept the seat move or you will be bumped that airlines run into trouble.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:43 pm

No it wasn't. it was due to the religious beliefs of other passengers.


Um, and those religious beliefs said that they couldn't or wouldn't sit next to a female. So, the airline moved the FEMALE - there's that pesky gender thingie there - not the MALES. They moved her because of her gender. Period. Zeke, I'm not trying to be rude to you, truly, but you're arguing a losing point. You can argue all you want about religious beliefs, but when Easyjet chose to move the INNOCENT female who was simply sitting in the seat that she paid extra for, it became a gender discrimination issue. Had they moved the males - you know, the ones who were complaining - then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Another poster asked you specifically that if a passenger had a religious aversion to sitting next to someone of a different race, how would you handle it? I didn't see that you answered him, perhaps I missed your response, but its a great question. Would you move the innocent passenger of another race on the grounds of the, "religious beliefs of other passengers?"
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:01 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
??? The entire reason she was moved was because of her gender.
No it wasn't. it was due to the religious beliefs of other passengers......
..... which is entirely based on gender discrimination.

zeke wrote:
What is glaring obvious to myself and I guess anyone else that has been to that part of the world is this is not unusual, it would be a well practiced regular social norm there. For example Nordau beach is open to women only on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday, and on Monday, Wednesday and Friday the beach is designated for men only.
Ok, a segregated beach is not my way of doing things, but when in Rome....

However, they weren't in Rome; they were embarking on an international flight.

If you like we could swap notes about Cap d'Agde beach in France. They have unusual rules there too. (I have been particularly careful with my choice of photo; other photos are aviailable... ;) ) I can see a whole bunch of different religions not being totally happy with those rules. So what? Me, I just let it all hang out!
Imagethx wikipedia, for everything. :lol:


FORB? I ran it through Google and all I got was a load of sunflowers. :D
Please avoid using an acronym that doesn't seem to be universally recognised.

Polot wrote:
Moving her because she a female is gender discrimination.
zeke wrote:
No, as they airline didn't move her because of her gender,...
You keep repeating this, and it still doesn't ring true.
zeke wrote:
... the reason for the move was to do with two other passengers and not with her. The test for this is if she would had been asked to move if they other passengers were not there, if the answer is no, the airline did not move her because of her gender.
What in the name of all things holy are you asking us to swallow here?

You've got it back to front, twice over. :banghead:
1) The test for this is if HE would have been asked to move if HE had been a man. If the answer is yes, the airline did not move her because of her gender.
alternatively
2) The test for this is if she would had been asked to move if the other passengers were not there. If the answer is yes, the airline did not move her because of her gender.


Polot wrote:
American Airlines, for example, can’t decide to move all black people to the back of the plane and all white people to the front then go “but the contract of carriage says we can reassign seats!!!” when they are sued.
zeke wrote:
That clearly would not be reasonable.
Hurrah, hurrah! Some sense at last.

Would it be reasonable if AA were not doing it just on a whim, but were accommodating a member of the Apartheid™ Religion who cannot sit near any black people?
After all, the complaining passenger is not being racist; it's just a facet of their "religion".

(apologies to Polot for duplicating some points; I was afk for too long, and you beat me to the reply.)
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20603
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:56 am

I'm going to stop posting until there is a judgement. For one of the few times, I hope Easyjet has to pay so much that all the EU airlines stop this discrimination.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
WBM
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:13 am

Westerwaelder wrote:
WBM wrote:
I think it best if we try to find a way to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. I use the word tolerant, because I happen to disagree with the beliefs of the passengers in question. Even though I do not like their beliefs, I believe they should be allowed to live there lives as they choose. As a society, I think we should try to make reasonable accommodation for those with different practices than the norm.

My solution for these situations would be to treat the request for a change of seats like any other request for change of seats. Requests for a change of seat happen everyday. In this case I think it is much better if they move the passengers who made the request. Also if anyone ends up in a worse seat, it should be the person who made the request. In cases like these the request should be just that, a request. If other passengers do not want to accommodate, they should not have to. If someone asked me to make a change of seats, and the new seat is no worse than the one I have, I would likely make the change.

If the passengers cannot be reasonably accommodated, then they should have to wait for the next flight, to see if they can make it work. Where I disagree with most of the posters is that I think that should be more of a last resort, than a first resort.


I agree with you but the challenge here is that you cannot accommodate someone's religious needs without discriminating against another person. Would it not be the responsibility of the person who has the issue to solve it? In all fairness it sounds like they did try but the fact remains that there is no hierarchy of discrimination.


I really appreciate your reply. Thinking about has helped me clarify some of the ways I agree and disagree with many of the posters on this thread. The biggest thing is that it is not discrimination that worries me it is harm. If we can accommodate the ultra orthodox without doing harm to other people, why not? I think airlines should have two goals.

Goal #1 - Make sure no harm is done to other passengers, in particular the female passengers that would be impacted by this. That is why I think it best to move the ultra orthodox instead of the female passenger. I would also be okay with upgrading female passengers in this case.

Goal #2 - Try to accommodate the ultra orthodox passenger. This is a secondary goal. If the first goal cannot be met, neither can the second. Because the ultra orthodox passenger have the issue they should bear the risk of a bad outcome.

In reading through the posts I think everyone broadly agrees with the first goal. With the second goal it seems like a lot of people want to do just the opposite. It seems like a lot of people want to make sure the people with the weird beliefs are not accommodated. I prefer tolerance if we can make it work with out harm to others.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:18 am

Polot wrote:
So when looking at her, someone who is not part of the religion, it is gender discrimination because she has to give up her selected seat just because she is a women and that unfortunately made someone else uncomfortable.


Unfortunately even if she was the persons wife, it maybe forbidden under their religion. In some religions males and females cannot touch in public, that would also include spilling over under the armrest. , and some are even to point when sex between married couples if forbidden unless for intent to make children.

Polot wrote:
She has the right to deny moving. It doesn’t have to be put on her to give up seat or get off flight.


Correct, she had the choice to say no, however didnt, she agreed to the request.

Polot wrote:
What is ‘normal’ in that part of the world doesn’t matter. Airlines must follow their home country’s laws. If that is an issue perhaps the passengers should stick to El Al and not Easyjet.


Incorrect, the doors were still open while in TLV, Israeli laws apply.

Polot wrote:
Nobody was stopping them from practicing their beliefs. They were free to move to different seats or get off the plane. Nobody was forcing them to sit in their original seats next to a women and to shut up.


Passengers are not free to move to another seat, they applied the correct procedure, advised the crew and the crew attempted to make the situation work.

Polot wrote:
Passengers have no right to make other passengers move. I don’t like sitting next to screaming babies. That doesn’t mean I can force a mother sitting next to me with a baby to move.


There would be nothing wrong with you expressing that to a crew member and them trying to accommodate that request. You are correct, as a passenger you cannot force another passenger to move, but there is nothing wrong with you asking the crew to see if there could be another arrangement.

Polot wrote:
You have to look at why they were being asked to move, and ultimately it is gender discrimination because she was a women and that made the person next to her uncomfortable.


No, I don't think that was the case at all, I am guessing she was asked if she didn't mind moving as its easier to move two people than it is to move four.

Polot wrote:
If I’m a KKK member can I force a black person next to me to move because I don’t feel comfortable being next to them?


Like I stated above, you as a passenger cannot force another passenger to move, but there is nothing stopping you from asking the crew if different arrangements can be made.

Polot wrote:
Airlines must follow anti-discrimination laws full stop. There is no “reasonable request” when it comes to it. Airlines (Or any company) are not allowed to break anti-discrimination law in the act of carrying out areasonable request. “Reasonable request” is just legalese to protect the company (and consumer) from having to follow outrageous requests that technically don’t break any laws.


There is no evidence to suggest that they discriminated, and there is no suggestion that the request is "outrageous" as it the norm in parts of TLV where they were at the time.

Polot wrote:
Again when fulfilling a reasonable request you cannot break anti-discrimination laws, inadvertently or not. Even if doing some would make accommodating the original requester easier for the airline.


There is no hierarchy when it come to dealing with discrimination or minorities, a female African american does not get two points and an Orthodox Jew one point, deaf and blind person two points. Everyone is equal, and airlines have the uneasy task of trying to accommodate everyone best they can.

Polot wrote:
You don’t seem to get the woman didn’t volunteer to move.


My understanding is she did, they asked, and she agreed.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
happytraveller
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:35 am

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:46 am

FGITD wrote:
zeke wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:


Your religious freedom ends where my space begins. If I'm sitting in a seat and the person next to me has a belief that they can't sit next to me, that's their problem to make peace with, not mine


Exactly. That sums up the situation perfectly. Could not have put it better myself.

Jerry
 
mrbonfire
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 8:59 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 7:30 am

While this is all wrong, I think that by admitting she moved voluntarily, she's damaged her legal case for taking action.
 
DH106
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:13 am

mrbonfire wrote:
While this is all wrong, I think that by admitting she moved voluntarily, she's damaged her legal case for taking action.


Well perhaps she felt she had to move 'voluntarily' for fear of being removed from the plane for being obstructive - is the situation clear here?
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
 
intrepidflyer
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:30 pm

armagnac2010 wrote:


And so according to the article, if the plane is following Israeli law when the doors are open in TLV, there is precedent that what easyJet did was against the law.

"Three years ago, Renee Rabinowitz, an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor, won a landmark ruling against El Al. The Israeli judge hearing the case said that “under absolutely no circumstances can a crew member ask a passenger to move from their designated seat because the adjacent passenger doesn’t want to sit next to them due to their gender”.

This categorically rules out even asking.. (or trying to accommodate, as some put it..)
 
TheWorm123
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:48 pm

zeke wrote:
JAGflyer wrote:
If your religion requires something non-standard/out of the ordinary it is up to YOU to ensure that accommodation for yourself, not a secular airline's. Whether it's pre-ordering a religious meal or somehow ensuring you have an empty seat next to you because you cannot sit next to a non-familial woman. If you want to live your life based around holy books and obscure rules from thousands of years ago, you're free to do so, at your own expense and in your own private space. Reasonable accommodation only goes so far and asking a person to move because of their gender is entirely unreasonable. For your information, I am a Jew and stand 100% behind this lady.



What you are posting is not correct, in fact the UN charter on the matter specifically spells out that minority religious groups cannot be discriminated or disadvantaged in private or public. An airline cannot force a passenger to purchase an empty seat because of their religious belief, nor can they charge extra for a special meal (Disadvantage), the airline must accommodate everyone reasonably.

There was nothing unreasonable in my view here. What you and others have claimed, which is not in evidence is the passenger was relocated on the first instance because of the gender they identified with, the UN does not say gender equality is above freedom of religion, they are both equal. If the airline accommodated the passengers best they could given the conflicting demands good for them. What I am seeing on this thread multiple times over is it’s okay pick on a minority based upon religion, it was not ok in WW2, and it’s not okay today for the CCP to use 3.5 million people who are are a minority as Covid vaccine guinea pigs. This remind me of Hal in a “Few Good Men” as the responsibility is incumbent upon the majority to protect the minority who can’t protect themselves.

Not once have I expressed if I agree of disagree with these people religious beliefs, nor have I tried to sway opinions by claimIng I am from a minority. There is no clear answer here, both viewpoints have to be accommodated.

What I disagree with is the assertion that a passenger was in the first instance relocated because the gender they identified with, it was to accommodate two other passengers religious beliefs. It may seem like semantics, however is it the key point.

This is the relevant excerpts from the UN Charter https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalIn ... ities.aspx

Article 1

1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.

2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.

Article 2

1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.

2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.

3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.

4. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.

5. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.

Article 3

1. Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights, including those set forth in the present Declaration, individually as well as in community with other members of their group, without any discrimination.

2. No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration.

World War 2? Are you seriously equating this to the Holocaust?
B752 B753 A332 A321 B738
 
kennyomg
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:28 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:50 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
Passengers have no right to make other passengers move. I don’t like sitting next to screaming babies. That doesn’t mean I can force a mother sitting next to me with a baby to move.

There would be nothing wrong with you expressing that to a crew member and them trying to accommodate that request. You are correct, as a passenger you cannot force another passenger to move, but there is nothing wrong with you asking the crew to see if there could be another arrangement.

Yes, sure, try to accommodate but I hope you can see the difference between:
Due to our religious beliefs my son and I are not allowed to sit next to a female, could you please find us other seats adjecent to a male
and
Due to our religious beliefs my son and I are not allowed to sit next to a female, could you please get her to change seats with a male?


Just like the difference between the hypothetical "I don't like sitting next to screaming babies could you please find me another seat" and "...could you please find the mother another seat". If the problem stems from my own beliefs/limitations/needs I should be the one bearing the cost that comes with a solution and should definitely not force said costs on others.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:12 pm

zeke wrote:
... the doors were still open while in TLV, Israeli laws apply.


And Israeli law is clear:

"Three years ago, Renee Rabinowitz, an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor, won a landmark ruling against El Al. The Israeli judge hearing the case said that “under absolutely no circumstances can a crew member ask a passenger to move from their designated seat because the adjacent passenger doesn’t want to sit next to them due to their gender”.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/27/woman-sues-easyjet-after-being-told-to-move-seats-due-to-ultra-orthodox-jewish-men


If people insist on clinging to their medieval dogmas, they need to return to taking medieval transport. They have no right to inflict their anachronistic beliefs on anyone else.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20603
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:15 pm

alfa164 wrote:
zeke wrote:
... the doors were still open while in TLV, Israeli laws apply.


And Israeli law is clear:

"Three years ago, Renee Rabinowitz, an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor, won a landmark ruling against El Al. The Israeli judge hearing the case said that “under absolutely no circumstances can a crew member ask a passenger to move from their designated seat because the adjacent passenger doesn’t want to sit next to them due to their gender”.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/27/woman-sues-easyjet-after-being-told-to-move-seats-due-to-ultra-orthodox-jewish-men


If people insist on clinging to their medieval dogmas, they need to return to taking medieval transport. They have no right to inflict their anachronistic beliefs on anyone else.

Thank you. I hope Easyjet pays out a good sized settlement to make sure airlines never do this again.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
mrbonfire
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 8:59 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:18 pm

DH106 wrote:
mrbonfire wrote:
While this is all wrong, I think that by admitting she moved voluntarily, she's damaged her legal case for taking action.


Well perhaps she felt she had to move 'voluntarily' for fear of being removed from the plane for being obstructive - is the situation clear here?


Absolutely not. I do not agree with what happened and I hope the lady is successful. She probably agreed so as not to cause a fuss but the fact is she did agree. You need to say you're doing it under duress and get witnesses. Fear it will be very hard to prove/test this in court.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Sat Aug 29, 2020 3:01 am

zeke wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:
Question: Suppose someone had a religious belief that they could not sit next to race X on an airline. They asked the airline to move a member of race X because that person was race X and sitting next to that person was a sin. What would you have the airline do?


All airlines are required to take reasonable steps to accommodate everyone inclusively, it does present cureveballs from time to time which everyone tries to handle sensitively. Airlines in their conditions of carriage state that the airline can reassign their seating location for anyone even after boarding. That is something every passenger will have voluntarily agreed to when purchasing their ticket, which is why I am perplexed by this situation. The passenger would have already agreed to the possibility of being relocated.


I don't think that's an answer. I'll ask the question more directly: would you ever make the race-X person move?

My guess is that you know that you cannot say yes, but don't want to say no. But if you don't have an answer to this, then I don't think you have an actionable philosophy.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2192
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:35 am

Should gay ultra orthodox male Jews sit next to men or women?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:21 pm

zeke wrote:

I have stated numerous times that one form of discrimination or disadvantage does not take preference over another. There is no evidence presented to suggest the airline first moved the passenger based upon their gender.


Actually there is.The lady has filed a compliant with the Israeli courts. There is evidence of communication and according to the documents there is corroborative support from witnesses to the second incident.
whether these are proven correct is for the court to judge, but there is evidence.

A personal view is that the fact that the lady isn't going for big money but instead is making a statement and focusing on ridding this practice lends credibility to her story, but thats just a personal belief.


zeke wrote:
All airlines are required to take reasonable steps to accommodate everyone inclusively, it does present cureveballs from time to time which everyone tries to handle sensitively. Airlines in their conditions of carriage state that the airline can reassign their seating location for anyone even after boarding. That is something every passenger will have voluntarily agreed to when purchasing their ticket, which is why I am perplexed by this situation. The passenger would have already agreed to the possibility of being relocated.


Airlines may write what they see fit in their conditions of carriage, but the condition of carriage is irrelevant if it contravenes legislation.
In the EU legislation trumping condition of carriage has been confirmed through several courthouses. Please consult EU regulation 261 and onwards and consider the courts interpretation of this regulation.
The court makes it clear that should any airline representative (in this case captain or lead flight attendant) violate legislation that is something that will make their employer liable for damages.

As an employer Id be more worried about my own practices if this occurred. This to me suggests that some employees believe that condition of carriage allows them to violate local legislation and then we don't just have a minor policy to change, but we have a corporate governance protocol that is not adhered to or an erroneous governance protocol. That is a serious issue. Both comes with high costs (post mortem, T&D, change of all documents etc).

Now, apparently, this will be settled under Israeli law since the interaction happened while on the ground in Israel.
In Israel the courts have found, in a previous ruling, that you can not move a passenger due to gender (no matter what's in El Al condition of carriage) since Israeli law trumps condition of carriage. El Al, was fined and ordered to seize such practices.

My own guess, based on that, is that Easyjets chances to prevail are slim and that they will take the fine, change their practices and agree to add discrimination to forthcoming training sessions for all employees.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
intrepidflyer
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Easyjet sued for discrimination by woman forced to move seat

Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:22 pm

Sokes wrote:
Should gay ultra orthodox male Jews sit next to men or women?


I think we know now everyone must choose for themselves, and ask the airline to accommodate them. But people should not be asked to move for someone elses borderline discriminatory beliefs.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos