Woman sues Southwest airlines: asked to leave flight due to offensive T-shirt
 

Southwest boots woman for shirt

Lorrie Heasley to sue for being asked to leave a flight because of her politically charged T-shirt.
October 6, 2005: 5:05 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Southwest Airlines kicked a woman off one of its flights over a political message on her T-shirt, the airline confirmed Thursday, and published reports say the passenger will sue.

Lorrie Heasley, of Woodland, Wash., was asked to leave her flight from Los Angeles to Portland, Ore., Tuesday for wearing a T-shirt with pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a phrase similar to the popular film title "Meet the Fockers."

A spokesman for Southwest Airlines (up $0.20 to $15.21, Research) told CNN that the airline used the "common sense" approach when they decided to escort Heasley from the plane in Reno, Nevada, during a stopover between Los Angeles and Portland, Ore.

The airline felt that the T-shirt was offensive and that other passengers would be outraged by it, the spokeswoman said, adding that the incident is about "decency."

"I have cousins in Iraq and other relatives going to war," Heasley told the Reno Gazette-Journal. "Here we are trying to free another country and I have to get off an airplane in midflight over a T-shirt. That's not freedom."

According to the airline spokeswoman, Heasley was asked to leave after she refused to cover up her T-shirt, an account that conflicts with Heasley's version in the Gazette-Journal.

Heasley told the newspaper that she agreed to cover her shirt with a sweatshirt, but it slipped as she slept. After she was ordered to wear her T-shirt inside-out or leave, she and her husband chose to leave, the paper said.



Read the rest here


~~~~~

Even though Southest can boot you from their flight for whatever they deem fit, at least she is just suing for the cost of her airline ticket and such - not millions for her "pain and suffering".

".....the airline's contract with the Federal Aviation Administration contains rules that say the airline will deny boarding to any customer whose conduct is offensive, abusive, disorderly or violent or for clothing that is "lewd, obscene, or patently offensive."

If there's a dress code for the airport, then bring out the fashion police.

Wow, this is ridiculous.

We had a dress code to follow when traveling Space Available. No jeans, no frayed clothing, etc. We had to follow it because, hey, we flew cheap.

However, it always has been my understanding that paying customers can wear whatever the hell they want. They should only be denied boarding if they pose a threat to the crew and the passengers.

Good for her and her suit. I hope she's victorious.

She has a right to wear whatever she wants.

For example, if she were to wear a "Blacks/Hispanics/Asians/Jews and Gays/Lesbians deserve to die" shirt with a large swastika or something of that nature sewn on the back, she has every right to wear it.

-Rudey

SW has some bitchy rules.

I suspect this case won't get shown on their TV show.

I think they had every right to ask her to either cover the offending shirt or leave the aircraft.

They're running a business. They own the airplane. They could lose customers who were offended.

Businesses have been sued for sexual harassment for having pictures of scantily clad women on the walls in their buildings. It wouldn't surprize me to see the airline get sued if the right person was on that flight and chose to make a stink.

I don't have a problem with their decision in this case.

I'm with DeltAlum. The woman was given the option of wearing the shirt inside out, and the rules of the airlines precludes allowing passengers wearing something " that is "lewd, obscene, or patently offensive."

She's free to fight for her right of free speech, but with a reasonable jury, she'll lose the case. Southwest would probably be better off refunding her money with a privacy clause.

Does this mean I can sue a club for not letting me in because they have a dress code& I am simply wearing my flip flops as a political statement? [don't ask me how it's a statement, i haven't figured it out yet]

Is having a dress code against the law?

-Mark

Exactly.

If it's the companies choice and they refund her money, then they have the right to server or not serve whatever people they so choose.

I don't the it was the message that was offinsive but the actual F-word. I respect SW for making that decision... I don't want my daughter seeing that word on someone's shirt. Wear it to a bar or whatever, but not in a family-orientated enviroment.

I guess people have forgotten the meaning of that quaint little sign posted in many businesses: "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE". You are entitled to the right of free speech and expression, but what people fail to realize is that with certain rights also come responsibilities.

I don't see an issue with a private business asking her to leave. But, she should DEFINITELY get a refund! They didn't fulfill the service for her.

Re: Woman sues Southwest airlines: asked to leave flight due to offensive T-shirt
 

Past the mentally retarded non sequitur . . . I would have paid money to see the airline force her off "in midflight."

Re: Re: Woman sues Southwest airlines: asked to leave flight due to offensive T-shirt
 

That would be cold.

Maybe they could offer her one of those new third world parachutes...the kind that opens on impact.

Seriously, they should refund her money, though. Seems to me that if they keep it, they've accepted her business and need to complete their part of the deal.

Re: Re: Re: Woman sues Southwest airlines: asked to leave flight due to offensive T-s
 

Agree totally. Keeping her money means that they have to keep their end of the bargain, which is to fly her to her destination. If they refunded the money, then they do not have a debt to fulfill.

Re: Woman sues Southwest airlines: asked to leave flight due to offensive T-shirt
 

This is the part I'm confused by.... How the Hell is it possible to sleep on a plane and be able to move around enough to have your SWEATSHIRT "slip" somewhere that makes it possible to see the profanity on your t-shirt? :confused: Maybe It's a different kind of sweatshirt than I'm thinking... But whatever.

I agree that if they refund her money then they have done nothing wrong.

Edited because maybe she didn't actually put the sweatshirt ON, just covered up with it. So that brings the question.... Why didn't she put it on?

I think the whole thing is silly. I do think "patently offensive" is vague and given the divide on so many issues, that is a high standard. For every person on the plane who was offended, there is probably one who wasn't and another who thought "wish I had that shirt."

Ultimately, the list of things for which airlines can keep your money and not give you service is VERY long and unlike any other buisness you can imagine. If they give her the money back it will be PR and not a lawsuit or anything else.

Re: Re: Woman sues Southwest airlines: asked to leave flight due to offensive T-shirt
 

That's my guess. I wondered about that, too.

As to being offensive to people, I suspect there were parents traveling with children, elderly people, religious folks and others who would be highly offended.

Seems to me that this goes beyond Politically Correct to a simple matter of good taste.

Re: Re: Re: Woman sues Southwest airlines: asked to leave flight due to offensive T-shirt
 

I agree!

I do think that some people wear things only for shock value. Then, they get offended when people actually find them shocking. :rolleyes:

Seriously.

As a business, you have the right to refuse service, but you don't have the right to take their money and THEN refuse service.

I think everyone pretty much agrees that the airline should refund her money.

"Fockers" is now an offensive word?! Sweetness!

It didn't say Fockers...it said the word kinda like Fockers...

i'm not talking about the shirt. I'm talknig about the word "Fockers" and if it's offensive or not. I use it all the time and it's finally time that people find it offensive!

I am very sadened by some of the posts above.:(

She does have rights to express Her Self! Oh, Patriotic Act., Not.

So, Dont Fly My Friggen Friendly Skys!

So, if A Sans Parachute!.;)

If She thought She She Was Cute, Da, didnt work!

I like SW Air. They are Great!!!!

Of course, there was a Stew oops Attendendent who sang Hey Hey Get a Seat We Got To Go. Some Blacks from KC Sued! Court Told them to screw off! Yea for Our Side of travellers!:) :)

Only one to get a B M from Indy!!! God did I need it!:cool:

This is what I thought the shirt said too. If it had profanity on it then she needed to either cover the thing up, flip it inside out, or get off. Whatever her political views were - she didn't use common sense.

Message follows... I spell: Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo Echo Romeo Sierra. Repeat: Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo Echo Romeo Sierra. Acknowledge, out.

The media was just 'cleverly' disguising a patently offensive word so as not to offend the sense and sensibilities of the great, unwashed, raggedy-ass masses! :D

The shirt said, "Meet the Fuckers" with pictures of Pres.Bush, Cheney, C.Rice, and maybe a couple of others on it.

Quite frankly I didn't dig the shirt and I'm glad that because she refused to change her shirt and her sweater "slipped" off she got off the plane. The airline however, SHOULD refund her money. I just can't stand ADULTS who wear offensive shirts like that when there could be children around. I'm sorry by my neice right now is learning to read and is trying to decipher everything and if she seen a shirt like that I'd kick that person in the nuts (whether they had any or not).

I don't have a problem with it either. Good for the airline! :)

ETA: As a parent, I would have been pretty ticked off if my child saw that shirt, and I probably would have complained about it.

Also, I do think the airline should refund her money for the part of the flight that she missed.

I find SWA, lewd, obscene, and patently offensive. And it has nothing to do with the t-shirt deal. Its just a trashy-ass airline. Yeah, its making money, but its still trashy, with trashy people who fly it.

Flown on any other airline recently? None are worth writing home about.

I wish SW flew to Denver because the lower fares are attractive, and you don't really get great service on any carrier these days.

For those of you who say you'd be pissed off if your kid read that shirt . . . what if somebody was just walking down the street wearing that shirt? Who would you complain to then?

I do understand the airline's dilemma and don't think they were out of line, but I don't think it was their responsibility to do this, either. Personally, if you take your kid out in public, they're going to be exposed to things you don't want them exposed to. Hey, chances are that they've already been exposed to naughty language on the elementary school playground. My thought on it is . . . if they don't already know what it means, they probably won't care. When you're 6, EVERYONE around you is wearing a tee shirt that you don't understand, and most 6-year-olds would rather go play than figure them all out. (I would like to reference the time that I watched "Dirty Dancing" when I was 9 -- ten years later I watched it again and said, "OMG, there's an ABORTION in that movie?" My 9-year-old self didn't have a clue -- it went right over my head.) And for those kids who do know what the f-bomb means -- well, you're really too late to protect them from it.

When I first read this (haven't caffeinated myself yet) I thought it said SWV. And I was like "why is he picking on them? They haven't had a hit in years."

At any rate, they should have told her to turn it inside out period, because as the story stated, even if you cover it the cover can slip or you can get too warm.

It sounds also like she knew she would get this kind of reaction.

kafromTN, a dress code at a club is OK as long as it's applied to everyone. You can't say "no bare midriffs" and let the skinny girls in with them while you keep the chubby girls out. There is another thread about this somewhere.

oohhhh, this was TWA (remember them) to a "T".
They were so bootleg, I can't even began to comment. :rolleyes:
SWA was like flying in a bentley compared to them.

Ok, back to the thread. Yah for SWA. Sorry, but anyone wearing a shirt with the "f-word" is purposely expecting a reaction from someone. She just probably thought it would be from a Bush supporter as opposed to the airline. :p

I would have thought they would fly you business or first class.

My problem with Southwest is that they don't assign you seats. But other than that, they have great fares when I don't book early enough. And I would much rather fly an airline that doesn't get government subsidies by using my tax money to pay pension benefits.

-Rudey

I flew SW last March on a really short flight (Austin to Houston) and I was assigned a seat.

Is this something they only do for some flights? :confused:

I've never heard of them assigning seats and I've flown it from many different cities.

Usually you're given a group number based on how early you check in and then you line up with your group and get a seats on a first come basis.

-Rudey

Weird. I do remember not having an assigned seat when I flew from New Orleans to Houston a few years ago. But I definately had one last March. *shrug*

This is the biggest myth out there. Generally, SWA is no cheaper than any other airline.

If you have to fly (like Rudy said) with only a few days notice then its 10-15% cheaper than the other carriers. But SWA hasent been the 'low-fare' carrier (with 7+ days booking) since the 90's.

Plus, they dont fly the traditional 'hub and spoke' system, so you have to stop three times between San Antonio and NY. Yes, they are introducting more non-stop flights, but your odds are pretty good that you will have more than one stop if you are flying a longer distance (like I ususally do). So you spend more time traveling. (My friend Beth flew hoem to NYC yesterday from San Antonio via stops in Houston AND Orlando). Is the extra travel time and often destination airport which is less convienient (Islip for NYC) really worth the 15% savings? For me its not. Its a great business model tho. Give people a sense of false savings and they will come flocking. By the time you factor in extra travel time (in the air and at distant airports) you've eaten through any savings... you as the customer just dont realize it because its on 'your dime'. Its just a big scam.

I dont fly expecting great service either. I dont fly southwest because I dont want to fly with the toothless homeless guy with a live chicken on his lap, or the white trash family with 12,341 screaming babies and children in tow. While not a hard and fast rule, some of the non-discount carriers seem to have a better group of travelers onboard.

Rudy, I fly American or Continental and neither one uses tax dollars to pay for its pension.