Woman's outfit gets her pulled off plane

[A K]

I do not think what she wore made her look like a whore.

Whore? No. Classless? I'd say borderline yes. But then again, working at Hooters doesn't exactly exude "I want you to respect me for my total package, and not (these)!"

There are no laws saying that you MUST wear panties.

No, but there are laws concerning public decency. If her lack of panties--if indeed that was the case--led the public to have a look or more, then she violated Cal. Pen. Code sec. 314(1) ("Every person who willfully and lewdly . . . Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.").



An airline policy of being "family friendly" + borderline violation public decency laws (if she indeed had none on)? Seems reasonable to me to tell her to cover it up.

She was embarrassed in an airplane in front of many people. She was lectured about her dress.

We've all been embarrassed at one time or another. And, how do we know how many people heard the content of this "lecture"? We're all quick to buy into this woman's story. Of course she will say that she was lectured--you don't win settlements with private, out-of-most-ears discussions. I'm not buying it.



One article mentions she felt that everyone was staring. Let's be honest: (1) You don't wear those clothes unless you want to be noticed; (2) Folks would have stared regardless; (3) Too bad. In addition, all she wanted was an apology, but because she didn't get one, she wants to sue. Give me a break. She sees a corporation with deep pockets.

Simply put, unless there is a rule that to fly you must wear a long skirt or pants, they treated unfairly and they will need to pay for what they did to her.

Welcome to everything that is wrong with the law. Unfair treatment is not illegal treatment. Not every embarrassment is actionable. As I said before, she wore an outfit to gain attention. She got what she wanted, but not necessarily how she wanted it. What's she going to assert?



A Section 1983 claim? Any good judge will point her to the door.



Intentional infliction of emotional distress? She'll be hard-pressed to show "outrageous" conduct by Southwest. If anything, the conduct was reasonable and somewhat amicable. In addition, even if there was some emotional distress, she'll be hard-pressed to show intentional action, as well as reckless action. And, sadly, only a California jury would find "severe" emotional distress.



Defamation? There's no malice, intent, false or falsity.



Privacy/intrusion? The scope of privacy in a semi-public area of an aircraft makes this a difficult claim to prove.



I'll be interested to see what crap this attorney puts in his complaint. And, I hope to God that Southwest does not settle. Open up the war chest and give it hell--much like Wal-Mart fights frivolous suits, folks need to put an end to greenback chasers.

 

[Tom Schindler]

As I said before, she wore an outfit to gain attention. She got what she wanted, but not necessarily how she wanted it. What's she going to assert?

You HONESTLY think her clothing was that obscene? Not I. She looked nice and presentable.





Tom

 

[A K]

Well, I think we can agree that we have completely different opinions of presentability, class, etc. But, as if it is not blatantly obvious, I'm a pretty conservative individual.

 

[Tom Schindler]

I am very conservative person myself. At the same time, I also respect other people choices as theirs. They are grown adults that can make choices for themselves and it does not affect my life at all.





Tom

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Regarding the lady on Polish Airlines with the "wardrobe malfunction". I did think she was dressed inappropriately. I wouldn't let my 15 year old daughter go out like that. However, once my daughter is 18 and not living in my house she has the right to wear what she wants. At that point I will only have an opinion, and no right to enforce my rules upon her.



If she later is thrown off of a plane for wearing something too revealing, I will explain to her that she has a right to wear what she wants, but also she shouldn't be offended if people treat her like a tramp because of it.



People have predjudices about the way people dress. My ex-fiancee is from Puerto Rico, and dresses sexy compared to US women. This dress is conservative for Puerto Ricans. She doesn't wear low-cut or extremely short dresses, but the dresses do show the form of her body. Because of her attire, she has some problems with other women judging her harshly and some men trying to approach her in inappropriate ways. This bothers her, because she is a devout Catholic, and very conservative. She is a beautiful woman and doesn't think she should have to wear ugly clothes to prevent these problems.



Also, I was not one of the folks that cheered and clapped. When I stated, "I love this country", it is true, but in this case it is also in a humourous way like Yakov Smirnov.

 

[Dan Vinke]

And let's see how many posts are made on this thread before someone makes a comment about her looks, rather than her situation with the plane. I'm guessing it won't be many.

Ok, if nobody else is gonna do it will. She is friggin HAWT!!!!!!!!



If you look that good you have a right to dress like that!!

 

[Frank Marano]

I am very conservative person myself. At the same time, I also respect other people choices as theirs. They are grown adults that can make choices for themselves and it does not affect my life at all.

You mean how you respected the choice of us who like sports in the USA basketball thread....???? You just couldnt understand why people could care about sports when so much politcal crap was going on in the world......real nice.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

:lol:



We also get called all sorts of things if we don't support unions. My choice, but there is usually hell to pay afterwards.

 

[Greg Stuhlsatz]

I think some widow cried about her clothing because her exhusband left her for a girl that looked like her.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Ummm...don't widows' husbands leave because they are dead? :lol:

 

[Johnny O]

Not necessarily. If an old guy drops his old wife for something like that, the sex would probably kill him. Joe Hardy excepted.

 

[Tom Schindler]

You mean how you respected the choice of us who like sports in the USA basketball thread....???? You just couldnt understand why people could care about sports when so much politcal crap was going on in the world......real nice.

Exactly. A basketball game outcome affects my life. A woman being told what she can or can not wear doesn't. One has nothing to do with freedoms while the other doesn't. There is no different between the two. Yep, you are right.



Nothing worse that having a team lose a ball game and before you know it, we are being lectured by a total stranger about how we are not allowed to wear clothing.

We also get called all sorts of things if we don't support unions. My choice, but there is usually hell to pay afterwards.

Exactly. You speak of unions as ONLY supporting lazy uneducated workers that could not make it on their own. That can be true, but a union also supports hard working Americans that have been bent over too many times to care to remember by some scumbag employer that doesn't respect anyone. I have seen many career military guys that were so lazy, they hated wiping their butt. I could easilly say, those that stay the military are too lazy to make it in the real word. (I honestly do not think that about military personal. As with any organization, some do take advantage of a loop hole to avoid work)





Tom

 

[Nelson Atwell]

You speak of unions as ONLY supporting lazy uneducated workers that could not make it on their own.

I'm guessing that "you" in this sentence refers to "some people", since I have never called anyone lazy or uneducated on this web site. I agree that some military guys are lazy, but no more than any other group of people. I don't follow them into the bathroom, so I can't verify the rest of your claim.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Nelson,



Yes, "you" is used in the plural form. As I said, as with any organization, some will harbor lazy workers that could never make it if they actually had to carry their own weight in the real world.



How is your union built Mazda running?





Tom

 

[Nelson Atwell]

My Nagasaki-built Mazda is going strong. I have over 25K miles on it on very rough Polish roads. The only defects are missing airbags (stolen) and a squeaky front suspension caused by a huge pothole.



I'm unable to confirm whether or not my vehicle was made by union robots. Japanese plants are highly automated.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Nelson,



You Mazda was built by Union labor. Just so you know. I knew how proud you were that it was built by non-union labor. I just figured I would bring you back to reality.





Tom

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Either way, it is a better built than my last ST. I don't care if it was made by baboons in Cameroon, as long as I don't spend every Saturday morning in the dealership getting something fixed. I lost count of how many Saturdays I wasted on that lemon.

 

[TomT]

You wife is someones daughter. Keep that in mind when you are doing your husbandly things to her.

I think Caymen needs to go into more detail about these "husbandly things" .

 

[A K]

Let's relax and focus on why Notre Dame sucks. (Off to State College now).

 

[Gavin Allan]

I think Caymen needs to go into more detail about these "husbandly things" .

Oh, I can fill you in:



Take out the trash.

Clean up the dog mess.

Wash her car.

Take her to the ballet.

Put up with her mother's crap.

etc.