Passenger sues Easyjet after crew asked her to move seat for ultra-Orthodox man refusing to sit next to women

Some religions are very opposed to homosexuality. Should a person be allowed to refuse to sit next to a gay couple holding hands on the grounds that it offends their religious beliefs?

The man asked not the airline, the airline staff facilitated his request by other passengers moving voluntarily.

Why did the airline staff not just say "That's not going to happen. You find your own seat" ?

Because it's easier to pick on a woman, that's why.

If this isn't sorted properly, then the next airline (may not be Easyjet) could find itself with not just one woman refusing to move, but a planeload of woman all supporting her right not to be moved. At which point a pettifogging few grand in one fine disappears into insignificance with the cost of a delayed flight. And that's before you factor in a decision to forcibly remove dissenting passengers and the cost of those suits too.

"Bame women, suffering with the double whammy that they do, are perfectly entitled to decide what feels personally worse when it comes to discrimination, sex or race"

Ah but we are not. What is clear from this thread is that as a Black woman I am not allowed to speak from my own experience of sexism and racism and describe what I felt was worse. By doing so I am apparently telling White women "to put up and shut up" with sexism as a PP suggested or I'm playing Oppression Trumps.

Heaven forbid a Black woman speak up and suggest that the racism we face is in anyway different. The White woman's experience of sexism is as bad as racism and that's that. Black women clearly need to STFU and stop complaining about our pesky issues. A man telling a woman he pays her less because she is a woman is exactly the same as someone calling a Black woman a wog. The time I was chased by a group of White men in a car screaming racist abuse is the same as my experiences of sexism. Ok.

To the 'BAME' women stating it is all the same - that's your experience. You don't speak for me.

Such a lovely thread in general though. It's like MN racist bingo. We've had the poster claiming White people who are a minority in some countries are victims of racism. Jewish men described as cunts. Seriously?

Incidentally there is a New York Times article about this very issue and one of the people interviewed is a Black woman who switched seats when asked in a similar situation. So, you know, it's not just White women who are inconvenienced and discriminated against in this way. I'm making this point since several posters have been asking "what would have happened if the woman was Black". Well some Black women would move, some wouldn't. Exactly the same as a woman of any other race. We are not some kind of special species who think and behave differently from White women. But we are treated differently because of our race on top of our sex. This doesn't mean we minimise the experiences of sexism White women face but it is not the same.

By the way, spoiler alert for those of you frothing at the mouth about these men: they do not represent the entire Orthodox Jewish community. Whilst many men do not engage with women they are not related to, many more do. I've had conversations with and sat next to Orthodox Jewish men on buses, a Rabbi took my daughter on a tour of a synagogue close to my parents home.
So can we stop with the name calling and generalisations about an entire community based on the dickish behaviour of some men on flights.

The man asked not the airline, the airline staff facilitated his request by other passengers moving voluntarily. I don't see why EasyJet is at fault, they defused the situation. The group to be sued are the rabbis who perpetuate this bigotry. The airline could probably do with specific training for crews on the tel aviv route as it's quite a common problem. Do I think the man was wrong - yes, but do i think she has grounds to sue the airline - no because they were just trying to get an amicable solution

However, I've been on a flight with Orthodox Jewish men, and they made a lot of fuss about a lot of things. The (female), cabin crew got rather eye rolly, to be honest.

I'm trying to remember an occasion when learning someones religion hasn't preceded some twattery. I'm sure it's happened, but in the main it does tend to be a clear "arsehole ahead" warning.

In my head, I default, obviously, to this country. I'm always rather shocked that in America, for instance, their civil/human rights laws are far less comprehensive than ours.

That's because they all emanate from the Constitution. And generally, because judges are quite averse to being hauled up before superior courts for getting constitutional issues wrong, they do tend to err on the side of caution.

As with the UK, the biggest barrier to civil liberties is simply access to justice. And rights you can't afford to enforce are no rights at all.

It's getting to the stage in the UK where with a capital injection it would be entirely possible to set up a self funding organisation that devoted itself to taking on cases to enforce rights from the costs and damages awarded.

I agree. Ryanair need to sort themselves out.

However, I've been on a flight with Orthodox Jewish men, and they made a lot of fuss about a lot of things. The (female), cabin crew got rather eye rolly, to be honest.

I bet their hearts sink when confronted with a flight involving this issue. There needs to be a better, more robust framework to prevent it from happening in the first place.

But I repeat my observation that since there have been court cases previously that have clearly stated what Easyjet did was unlawful, then it's more the shame on Easyjet for their decision (because it was a conscious decision, not some accident of fate) to bully the woman who was minding her own business, not the sky-fairy botherers who really need to get a fucking grip. Unless I am very much mistaken, the Talmud doesn't mention aeroplanes, or indeed any form of human invented heavier than air travel. So what makes them think a book written 4,000 years ago is relevant that that ?

As with all religions and people who follow them, there is a lot of picking and choosing which bits you find important.

I think it was Russell Howard who made a joke about ultra religious Christians getting upset at seeing a gay couple kiss on a flight as being "unnatural" ... as he said ... Unnatural ??? You're in a fucking metal tube flying through the air at 400 miles an hour. There's nothing fucking natural about that at all !

I meant to add that I feel quite sorry for the Ryanair staff. Having to keep different laws in their heads, applying to different situations and countries.

In my head, I default, obviously, to this country. I'm always rather shocked that in America, for instance, their civil/human rights laws are far less comprehensive than ours.

There's been lots of reference to the Equality Act, which obviously isn't relevant as this case is about a breach of Israeli law (which it clearly has breached), not UK law.

Yes, indeed. It's quite heartening to know that they have already ruled about this and set a precedent.

In which case, you would think it would just be a gimme.

For example: I'm not allowed to not employ somebody because they are catholic, but they don't have the right to tell me not to eat meat on Friday because of their belief.

It's not quite that simple ... they do have a right to express the view that you shouldn't eat meat on a Friday.

And under the proposed Scottish hate law, it's debatable that if you responded suggesting you object to that view, you could be charged with a hate crime.

I'm glad I'll be gone in a few years. But feel sorry for anyone who has to grow up into this.

If a family wanted to sit together, either a man or a woman would be politely asked if they would mind switching seats. If a person with poor bladder control wanted to sit closer to the toilets, either a man or a woman would be politely asked if they would mind switching seats.
The onus is still on the family or the person with bladder issues to reserve their seats well ahead of departure to guarantee that they are seated together or have a seat next to the toilet. Flight staff can only do so much to accommodate all kinds of requests and cannot guarantee specific seating, especially if the other person isn't willing to move.

In the case of the ultra orthodox men, only a woman would be asked to move. This is the very definition of sex discrimination because the same would not be asked of a man, unlike the above examples.
The onus is on the ultra orthodox men to book their seats well in advance so they are all together or book an extra seat to ensure they aren't inadvertently seated next to a woman. Not all religious beliefs can be reasonably accommodated, especially if they are extreme ones like ultra orthodox Jewish ones, and you have a busy flight.

Muslims should ensure they specify a halal dietary requirement well in advance. A Muslim who turns up for a flight, sits next to a vegetarian, then 'asks' the vegetarian to swap the veggie meal with their meat one because they couldn't possibly go against their religious beliefs in eating non-halal meat is being arsehole. Yes the vegetarian can say 'no thanks, I'll stick with my veggie meal', but it's still a stupid and unreasonable request to make, when the onus is on the Muslim to ensure they inform the airline well in advance or bring along their own meal if they are that bothered at the prospect of breaching their beliefs.

religion is also a protected characteristic and must be considered to avoid discrimination. All protected characteristics are worthy of the same consideration

I'm not allowed to discriminate against a person because of their religion. That doesn't mean they are allowed to discriminate against me because of their religion.

For example: I'm not allowed to not employ somebody because they are catholic, but they don't have the right to tell me not to eat meat on Friday because of their belief.

There are people here trying to complicate the discussion in order to justify or excuse what happened. This woman was asked to move because she was a woman - that is clear and obvious discrimination. It should never have happened.

The Equality Act is irrelevant here, as the case is being bought in Israel under Israeli law - although I'm sure it has a similar act, given that similar cases have been settled previously in favour of women forced to move.

Which, by the way, is the real story here. Not that it happened. But that it's happened before and airline have been fined before. So I don't think it's too much of a stretch to claim that Easyjet chose the route of bullying the vulnerable rather than enforcing the law.

Maybe they could paint that on the side of a plane. In rainbow colours ?

Religion can't be some kind of magic that abrogates everybody else's rights. Nor is it some kind of magic that can force everyone else to participate in it.

I think you will find that religion is exactly that.

One would not expect an airline to tell a Muslim they must find their own Halal meal, nor a person with prostate cancer they couldn't have an aisle seat to ensure ready access to a lavatory

What utter nonsense. In the case of a meal one would expect the passenger to say what they needed at the appropriate time. The appropriate time here was when these men booked their seats - they could have booked the row. The onus was on them to move- not the women.

As for your other example the person needing aisle access has the option of booking an aisle seat when making a booking and insisting on getting the seat they booked.

This woman actually booked a specific seat (I never do) who knows- possibly she needed aisle access due to a disability.

The airline simply asked her to move; that in itself is not discriminatory, as she had the right to refuse

Of course it's discriminatory. They only asked her because she is a woman.

Much like the woman booked her seat, nothing prevented the Ultra Orthodox men from booking seats in a group. Instead, they deliberately spread out on planes to have access to aisles and then insist that everything else also changes to suit them. I was once on a flight that was cancelled due to the uproar made by these men, and the airline staff were rude to the women who stood their ground and refused to move. The ultra orthodox have even forced flights to land at other airports before due to being unhappy with timings. Too frequently, the staff refuse to intervene or simply just tell you what seats are available, which undermines women and violates Israeli law (which is very pro-women).

Its also important to note that the vast, vast majority of Jewish people don’t have these beliefs - this is a minority of people. El Al, the national carrier of Israel, has a no nonsense approach: if they try and do the seat thing, they’re removed immediately by security. If you’re interested in cases of sex based discrimination coming up against religion, check out the work of the Israeli Religious Action Centre. They do great work.

Whatever the personal beliefs, the law on equality is that religion is also a protected characteristic and must be considered to avoid discrimination. All protected characteristics are worthy of the same consideration

Actually that isn’t true UK law has determined that in certain cases disability trumps religion (Muslim taxi driver refusing to take a passenger with a guide dog- he discriminated unjustly and illegally). There has to be a balance struck and one characteristic may well trump another.

The men could easily have asked to move. There was no need for the person who was happy with her seat to have to move. If no one on the plane had volunteered to move to accommodate them they would not have been discriminated against. EasyJet would have done as much as they could by asking but there's no obligation on EasyJet to insist another passenger moved.

*I’m a BAME woman and utterly reject the argument that sex discrimination isn’t that big a deal compared to racism (stop playing Oppression Olympics!) or because 50% of the planet is female so we’re “all in it together.”

More than 50% of the planet is non-white, no one would say “racism isn’t a big deal because the billions of non-white people are all in it together.” There are too many divides both within feminism and among women globally to say that we’re all in it together.*

@boltzmannbrains I’m BAME too and completely agree

The airline simply asked her to move; that in itself is not discriminatory, as she had the right to refuse.

Yes it is. It discriminates against her on the basis of her sex. Just asking her is already discriminatory.

They're not asking her to move for a family. Which wouldn't be discriminatory, because they could equally ask the same of a man.

They're asking her to move because she is female. They are treating her differently to how they would treat a man in the same situation.

It's the very definition of sex discrimination.

The onus is on religious men to find seating arrangements that suit their beliefs rather than expecting others to dance to their tune

Whatever the personal beliefs, the law on equality is that religion is also a protected characteristic and must be considered to avoid discrimination. All protected characteristics are worthy of the same consideration. One would not expect an airline to tell a Muslim they must find their own Halal meal, nor a person with prostate cancer they couldn't have an aisle seat to ensure ready access to a lavatory.

The origins of their beliefs are irrelevant. The only relevance is consideration of protected characteristics. Both parties had protected characteristics. Sitting next to a woman, for an orthodoxic man, might well be contrary to their beliefs and to force them to do so would be a breach of their rights. The airline simply asked her to move; that in itself is not discriminatory, as she had the right to refuse. Its simply like someone being asked to move to allow a family to sit together. A reasonable request to bring about an effective solution. Poor crew were put in a difficult situation. The best solution was possibly to ask the men to move but it would have been better to make their needs clear at booking or boarding.

I’m a BAME woman and utterly reject the argument that sex discrimination isn’t that big a deal compared to racism (stop playing Oppression Olympics!) or because 50% of the planet is female so we’re “all in it together.”

More than 50% of the planet is non-white, no one would say “racism isn’t a big deal because the billions of non-white people are all in it together.” There are too many divides both within feminism and among women globally to say that we’re all in it together.

Not to mention the “discrimination isn’t as big a deal when you have others to share it with” kind of contradicts “discrimination is a much bigger deal when it also affects your relatives.”

And making the argument that some women are white and have white privilege ergo anti-woman discrimination isn’t a big deal ignores intersectionality and can be flipped - how would you like it if someone said “well some black people are men and therefore have male privilege”?

I’m also disabled and that’s one of the worse forms of discrimination both currently and historically. All through history disabled people have been locked up or killed. Any event of mass oppression you can name, the disabled people were treated the worst. Anti-disabled discrimination isn’t less serious just because it’s not something I can share with my able-bodied relatives.

The onus is on religious men to find seating arrangements that suit their beliefs rather than expecting others to dance to their tune

I don't think much else needs to be said