65 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

Laugh Laugh Laugh Laugh Laugh Laugh Laugh Laugh

There must truly be something wrong with me. I wouldn't make him cover his shirt but I have no problem with a plane full of people beating the snot out of him just for being an A-hole. I wouldn't violate his right to free speech but I have no problem with an old fashioned butt kicking! I think I need therapy!

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt
expatriate wrote:
I'd argue that if the guy's going to take us to the cleaners over an Arabic T-shirt, we might as well beat his a$$ and get our money's worth in the process. Evil!

Really -- we've got 240 passengers that agree he went crazy, flushed his shirt down the toilet, and fell as he was coming out of the bathroom... Think

Now THAT I can agree with you on. !! Joker

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

OK -- I submit the following to restate my position that the airline was not violating the guy's constitutional rights by asking him to cover his T-shirt:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-airline-felonies20-...

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

I don't see how this article illustrated anything of the kind. It refers to people who are being prosecuted for marginaly problematic behavior on planes. Behavior that probably wouldn't get them anything more than a nasty stare if it were elsewhere.
All the cases referred to were people acting distruptive, sexually explicitly, or in a threatening manner. One again it illustrated the fact that wearing arabic writing on your shirt is none of the above.The constitution limits government, government in turn makes laws that govern business practices based on the constitution. Just because you or I may not trust people of Arabic descent does not make them all terrorists nor does it make their language offensive or threatening. Freedom is Freedom. Period. It applies to all or it's worthless. if I wear a t-shirt that says kiss me Im irish in gaelic does this make me an IRA bomber? The idea is ridiculous and has no place in a free society. Yet again I ask how long before people are "threatened" or "insulted" by our NRA ball caps (tshirts, polo shirt, belt buckle whatever) and use this very same argument to say were threats to society because we own guns and know how to use them. What if today for example an NRA member were excluded from the inaguration ceremony(or forced to change his shirt) just because he were considered a Security risk to Obama. It's no secret most of us dislike him and we all own guns, right? Gosh Nichols and McVeigh were NRA members weren't they? All NRA members are not assassins anymore than all Arabs are threats to national security.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

This is a good thread. I'll make a few points...

1.) This was not a court victory. In other words Jarrar/ACLU did not win the case in court. It was an out-of-court settlement terminating the litigation. No judge or jury found for Jarrar. They battled in court for 2.5 years with no outcome, I'm sure the legal cost for the defendants was well beyond 0.25 million. Jarrar costs were presumably free since the ACLU took the case.

2.) The defendants are mum. All public accounts of the incident are from the plaintiff, Jarrar. The press accounts paint him as being complacent and minding his own business, then the TSA/JetBlue jumped him. This is his account and we have no other account in order to judge if there were aggravating circumstances beyond the writing on his shirt. Considering they battled in court for 2.5 years, I'm sure there is more to the story than just a open/shut case of "t-shirt discrimination". JetBlue has publicly denied Jarrar's account of the incident.

3.) Can anyone produce a JetBlue boarding contract? I'm willing to bet in not so fine print there is an explicit blanket clause that says JetBlue can refuse any one, for any reason, at any time at JetBlue's soul discretion triggering a full refund. This is entirely within their rights as a private business. If you don't like it walk, ride a bike, train... etc.

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

Bitmasher wrote,.
)

Quote:
Can anyone produce a JetBlue boarding contract? I'm willing to bet in not so fine print there is an explicit blanket clause that says JetBlue can refuse any one, for any reason, at any time at JetBlue's soul discretion triggering a full refund. This is entirely within their rights as a private business. If you don't like it walk, ride a bike, train... etc.

Contracts private or otherwise still must be within the law, local, state and Federal. Laws are based upon the constitution and as such cannot be in violation of same. We saw evidence of this in Heller Vs. DC. An unconstitutional law was overturned by the courts. A business can descriminate as it chooses however it cannot be based upon the following; race, age, sex, religion, national origin or sexual preference. Forcing someone to cover a t shirt because the writing on it is Arabic is descrimination based on national origin which should be obvious to any free thinking person. Jet Blue did not win in court. Neither did they give this person 240 grand just to be nice guys. They settled because they knew they were wrong and a Liberal jury might have done much worse. They have legal advisers and attorneys for just this purpose. You can bet if they had a legal leg to stand on they would have fought, or at least settled for much less.

Offline
Joined: 12/15/2008
Posts: 22
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

where ca i get an Arab Shirt...need some extra cash fast!!!

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

In the contract of carriage on Jet Blue's website, their contract states the following under paragraph 24, "Refusal to Transport." Specifically, para 24F lists categories where refusal or removal may be necessary for the comfort and safety of the passenger(s) or other passengers. Specifically, para 24F(1)lists: "Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive"

Other cateories include being barefoot over age 5, trying to sell things to other passengers, having offensive body odor, being pregant and expecting to deliver within 7 days, having a contagious disease, being intoxicated, being unable to sit the seat fully upright with the seatbelt fastened, or a bunch of other items.

This isn't a Constitutional issue. This is a settlement to avoid costly litigation that they'd win in the end.

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

Expat wrote,

Quote:
Specifically, para 24F lists categories where refusal or removal may be necessary for the comfort and safety of the passenger(s) or other passengers. Specifically, para 24F(1)lists: "Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive"

According to you having a T shirt with Arabic on it is offensive or threatening? Abusive, intimidating, violent or obscene? The allegation is ridiculous. Once again you prove my point. The actions of the airline were descriminatory even by their own standards. Private business may not suspend suspend state or Federal laws within a contract and ALL laws must be within the framework of the constitution. If this person were any race other than Arabic we wouldn't even be having this debate. We cannot alow ourselves to be so frightened and intimidated by actions of terror that we allow the terrorists to win by proxy. "Those who would sacrifice freedom for safety or security, deserve neither" Benjamin Franklin

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

You may not consider the T-shirt to be offensive. I do. This is a subjective issue, and who on the aircraft is authorized to be the judge of what is offensive? According to the contract of carriage, it's Jet Blue Airlines -- represented by its aircrew members in this situation. There is no way you can come up with an objective definition of "offensive" or "threatening" that covers all contingencies, which is why the contract empowers the carrier to make the call. And by the way, there's also a clause in there that Jet Blue Airlines can change the contract at any time at its discretion. In other words, if there's a conflict over definition, Jet Blue wins.

Once again, the Constitution restricts the authority of government, not private affairs. This is a contract -- a deal that you willingly agree to in order to obtain carriage on the airline. You agree to suspend certain liberties, and they agree to provide service.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can't give up your liberties of your own accord. People sign contracts all the time that limit their freedoms. One of the most common contractual agreements in public setttings is that you will behave. If a restaurant has a dress code, you agree to dress and act appropriately in order to obtain service. This is a dress and behavior code, uniformly applied. Don't like it? Eat somewhere else. The Constitution doesn't give you the right to go to a five-star restaurant in a clown costume (albeit with collar and tie) and pass out religious literature to every table.

We have hundreds of thousands of people in military service that signed contracts that limit their Constitutional freedoms -- and that's with the Government itself, not a private enterprise.

Jarrar agreed to the terms of the contract when he accepted his boarding pass. By wearing a shirt deemed offensive or threatening by the crew and refusing to comply with their request, he was in breach of contract and the carrier was no longer obligated to transport him. And yet, the carrier transported him nevertheless, albeit in a different seat.

Had this case actually gone to court, Jet Blue would have won. But as Bitmasher points out, it would have likely cost them more than $240K in legal fees to win because the ACLU was involved and Jarrar is a political activist. Personally, I think the decision to settle was dumb, because it opens them up for future litigation that adds to the cost of this settlement. Ask Smith & Wesson about how much money it saved by making a bad settlement for short-term gain.

If you want to review the contract, you can find it here:

http://www.jetblue.com/p/jetblue_coc.pdf

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
American Made vs. Overseas ManufacturingFieldDress902/27/2009 01:50 am
Horn mount coverflyanbrian1308/05/2008 20:49 pm
Firearm Coverganny76312/24/2007 20:07 pm
Looking for a well made, reliable shotgun for 200 dollarsredneckhunter504/08/2008 20:12 pm
Dog For Sale:M.Bird309/19/2011 10:57 am