AA settles suit over Islamic head attire
- Thread starter FA Mikey
- Start date
- Status
Oy Vey!
I'll be interested to see how they handle the first guy that demands the right to wear a swastika arm band over his uniform jacket.
Since the EEOC does not take a "cut" in discrimination lawsuits like a lawyer does, she'll get the entire 60K...and that should buy a lot of rags for her head.
I find it odd that she was offered a job that did not require a uniform and she declined. It would appear that this was an individual who went looking for a lawsuit.
I'll be interested to see how they handle the first guy that demands the right to wear a swastika arm band over his uniform jacket.
Since the EEOC does not take a "cut" in discrimination lawsuits like a lawyer does, she'll get the entire 60K...and that should buy a lot of rags for her head.
I find it odd that she was offered a job that did not require a uniform and she declined. It would appear that this was an individual who went looking for a lawsuit.
These type of lawsuits, is what is wrong with our country.
EOEC,takes things too far. Now we will all pay the price for it. Such as, you can now, not say anything, that is not politically correct. Because you may offend someone.
That money,will never do her any good. She may have fun spending it. Think, what she could have made if she would have started her career in 1999.
Wonder who else told her no,not during work hours. Guess we will find out soon.
EOEC,takes things too far. Now we will all pay the price for it. Such as, you can now, not say anything, that is not politically correct. Because you may offend someone.
That money,will never do her any good. She may have fun spending it. Think, what she could have made if she would have started her career in 1999.
Wonder who else told her no,not during work hours. Guess we will find out soon.
When I hired on. This is the uniform, if you don't like our policy uniforms, don't take the job. If it changes while you are employed. You have every right to Q-U-I-T.
AA now has a prayer room for emp to go to while on duty to say their prayers. How stupid is this? If I had 3 Kazabajikas on my crew of 5 and it was time for their meditation to the great kazabajika in the trees. Oh course they have to sit back and have their sunglasses on. I should then stop loading the aircraft to allow the kazabajikas an hour or two [remember while on duty] to be properly accomidated by AA. I will then have to wait for another crew to help load and bec another 250 FSCs are hitting the street, it may be an hour or two.
Then all AA wants to know is who gets coded for the delay.
Personally I'm beginning to think the Trees and that Kazabajikism may have something going for them.
Really WHAT A JOKE... SADLY
AA now has a prayer room for emp to go to while on duty to say their prayers. How stupid is this? If I had 3 Kazabajikas on my crew of 5 and it was time for their meditation to the great kazabajika in the trees. Oh course they have to sit back and have their sunglasses on. I should then stop loading the aircraft to allow the kazabajikas an hour or two [remember while on duty] to be properly accomidated by AA. I will then have to wait for another crew to help load and bec another 250 FSCs are hitting the street, it may be an hour or two.
Then all AA wants to know is who gets coded for the delay.
Personally I'm beginning to think the Trees and that Kazabajikism may have something going for them.
Really WHAT A JOKE... SADLY
Acually, the EEOC doesn't take things too far. In order for the EEOC to bring suit on behalf of a Charging Party, an extensive investigation must take place, and investigation that can take up to 2 years or more. I've never seen the EEOC take charges of discrimination lightly. If the woman's case did not have merit, they would have simply issued her a right to sue letter and sent her on her way with the recommendation that she hire a private attorney. Since the EEOC brought this suit, that usually means there was more to it than what the media reports, and that the EEOC issued a determination that weighed heavily in her favor. Chances are, she was a caboose case, and by that I mean she was the last in a string of similar complaints against AA, and one that had enough evidence that it could be used to bring a stop to the perceived discrimination, and to effect change in AA's policies that are discriminatory in nature. The EEOC also must make every attempt at a concilliation between the parties before proceeding to court. In that instance, AA more than likely stonewalled or outright told the EEOC to schmeg-off, so off to see the judge they went.
60K for a head wrap is outrageous. Prayer rooms on company time is, in itself, discriminatory against those who don't use them. There is no end in sight to what people will perceive to be discrimination and it seems the cheesier the case, the bigger the bucks, while the ones that have serious merit are punished in retaliation for all the garbage that win big awards.
All one need do is take the time to look into the EEOC filings against not only AA, but airlines in general and you'll find dozens upon dozens of discrimination complaints, the majority with merit. It has been the EEOC, and the Department of Labor who have helped to effect change in the way the airlines treat their employees, and have helped immensely to shape the diversity programs that many carriers, especially AA, now boast about as if the programs were created of their own accord.
This was clearly a case that was escalated due to the 9/11-muslim connection, and it was intended to send a message. Otherwise, a complaint as senseless as this would never have seen the light of day. AA, in it's zeal to back up it's many previous statements about how it's employees do not discriminate against the [deleted] travelers (read: passenger profiling), they gave in and settled the case in an attempt to send a message of their own. Unfortunately, the message backfired because the only message it sent was how stupid they were for shelling out 60K to someone who wanted to put a bed sheet on her head during working hours. This would have been the case that AA should have taken all the way to the jury, where anti-bed sheet sentiment since 9/11 would have given them a clear victory.
WNP,
I am sure there is more to the story. I think A.A. could have beat this one.
You make some points to ponder.
We had Diversity Training,paperwork, accidently, [on purpose]land in the workers hands. We were not supose to know about it yet. A Supervisor, went balistic, collecting as many copies as he could.
It was titled, TWU Diversity Training. The union denied it. Which I believe, due to the Supervisors actions.
The paperwork list a lot of common words that we all use. Such as Fried chicken, boy, buddy, babe, honey, redneck. Which can be meant to mean something else.
So therefore it falls under Diversity.
There was many words.
The problem I have with Diversity,is the fact that no matter where you work. We are also of different generations.
Diversity,seems to open a can of worms. It benefits a few,and punishes a whole group of people. I see no need for it.
The EEOC,already has laws in place. Do we have to have Diversity to see that they are followed?
True Story, Two guys cutting up with each other calling each other a redneck. Another person reports it. These guys are fired. They do get their jobs back.
Should that have happened? I don't think so. Many more to come if real diversity becomes the policy.
We can all go to work with duct tape on our mouth.
But, we can now wear a turbon if we want to.
MD80AA
I am sure there is more to the story. I think A.A. could have beat this one.
You make some points to ponder.
We had Diversity Training,paperwork, accidently, [on purpose]land in the workers hands. We were not supose to know about it yet. A Supervisor, went balistic, collecting as many copies as he could.
It was titled, TWU Diversity Training. The union denied it. Which I believe, due to the Supervisors actions.
The paperwork list a lot of common words that we all use. Such as Fried chicken, boy, buddy, babe, honey, redneck. Which can be meant to mean something else.
So therefore it falls under Diversity.
There was many words.
The problem I have with Diversity,is the fact that no matter where you work. We are also of different generations.
Diversity,seems to open a can of worms. It benefits a few,and punishes a whole group of people. I see no need for it.
The EEOC,already has laws in place. Do we have to have Diversity to see that they are followed?
True Story, Two guys cutting up with each other calling each other a redneck. Another person reports it. These guys are fired. They do get their jobs back.
Should that have happened? I don't think so. Many more to come if real diversity becomes the policy.
We can all go to work with duct tape on our mouth.
But, we can now wear a turbon if we want to.
MD80AA
skyangelnflight
Member
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/5/2002 11:50:52 PM MD80AA wrote:
We can all go to work with duct tape on our mouth.
But, we can now wear a turbon if we want to.
MD80AA
----------------
[/blockquote]
I think that would be a great fashion statement. Can you see it? A person wearing a turbin on thier head and duct tape on their mouth. The tape could come in a variety of fashion colors and fabric finishes. Maybe a nice silk high sheen tape in chartrouse, with a satan turbin in mauve. . .
hmmmmmmmmm?
Many wives may start purchasing the look for their husbands???
----------------
On 9/5/2002 11:50:52 PM MD80AA wrote:
We can all go to work with duct tape on our mouth.
But, we can now wear a turbon if we want to.
MD80AA
----------------
[/blockquote]
I think that would be a great fashion statement. Can you see it? A person wearing a turbin on thier head and duct tape on their mouth. The tape could come in a variety of fashion colors and fabric finishes. Maybe a nice silk high sheen tape in chartrouse, with a satan turbin in mauve. . .
hmmmmmmmmm?
Many wives may start purchasing the look for their husbands???
This is part of the bullship that's wrong. This is the dress code you don't like it don't take the job.
- Status
Similar threads
