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

I wonder if the man had contacted the airline in advance and explained this issue, they would have just managed the seat allocations to ensure no women were in seats where he was.

Whereas I understand the equality act is designed to facilitate when protected characteristics conflict, I still think this is bad. I still think it's wrong that the airline staff should be acting in a discriminatory fashion, at the behest of a male customer.

If I was working on the booking system, I would be incensed that a man was demanding I help him out in his sexism.

If they don't like it, buy two seats. on your laptop, at home, without involving anyone else.

Would also think it would protect airlines and their staff from dealing with this kind of rude customer if they were clear in their booking processes: if you require any kind of particular seating, for example..... this must be requested within this booking. If you do not request it now, we will not be able to accommodate you at the time of boarding, and you will either need to accept your allocated seat and situation or leave the flight.

Responsibility on both sides.

I wonder if the man had contacted the airline in advance and explained this issue, they would have just managed the seat allocations to ensure no women were in seats where he was. End of problem without massive scene and embarrassment to women. Just requiring that he turns up and that women will be shunted out of his way to facilitate him regardless of their plans and needs and bookings isn't acceptable.

The Equality Act has processes for adjusting situations to accommodate needs, but the onus should be on the person who requires that adjustment to make their needs known in advance and for third ways and accomodations to be organised that work for everyone. That's inclusion. As opposed to who trumps who, and who must be given what they want at other people's expense. Which does nothing to foster the good relations between groups that the Equality Act is there to support, it just builds resentment and separation.

I will always be a woman first, and a woman of Indian ethnicity second. Men of all races, ethnicities and religious persuasions freely express their sexist attitudes and disgusting behaviours towards women around the world on a daily basis.

The onus is on religious men to find seating arrangements that suit their beliefs rather than expecting others to dance to their tune and expecting women to be the ones that automatically make way for them.

Women the world over are treated like shit by men. I might experience racism some of the time depending on location, but sexism and misogyny is universal and ubiquitous, unfortunately.

Even if it is the man that moves, he's still asking another person to move for his beliefs.

The only way an airline could make allowances for this belief is to only allow men/women who want to guarantee sitting next to a person of the same sex to book a seat next to a person of that sex who has already booked.

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. (If a distinction is even possible, which I should imagine is often quite difficult).

I'm sure if you asked every BAME woman in this country for her opinion there would be a mix of some who say they have experienced more racism and some sexism and some saying they have experienced both in equal measure.

Like race, sex is a protected characteristic, she has been discriminated against because of her sex and she is offended by it, therefore it needs to be treated as seriously as discrimination against any other protected characteristic.

I certainly don't agree with them, but I'm not sure what easyjet was supposed to do.

Isn't it obvious? They should have told the men they had three choices: (1) See if they could move elsewhere; (2) put up with sitting near a woman; (3) leave the plane. And if (3) wasn't possible, e.g. because it would delay the plane leaving, then they wouldn't have that choice either. The men in question couldn't complain that it was religious discrimination against them, because they obviously didn't make their situation clear when they booked.

Sex discrimination in this case isn’t deeply personal. It is wrong but it elicits anger and frustration, not deep, personal wounds. I’m not minimising it but refuse to see it equated with race discrimination in the same context. They are different.
Actually this kind of religious belief has it's origins in a deep disgust of female biology, specifically menstruation and concepts of purity. I may feel anyone who thinks a menstruating woman is unclean is a deranged idiot but the fact is all these men have ruled civilisations for most of history.

I take it deeply personally because I see real women suffering real harm from this today and know in another time and place it could be me. My rights are provisional.

The more I read about these issues (I am still new), the more I think that it is important to separate the legal issues from feelings and perceived fairness.

The law is (in my mind) a very imperfect attempt to protect minority characteristics like sex and religion - and race in this discussion. As women, I think it is important that we try to use whatever influence we have to make sure that sex remains a protected characteristic in law - and enforced as such. “Feelings” of other protected characteristics should not undermine this imperfect legal protection.

I am not a WOC, so have no experience of racism, but I will do whatever I can to make sure that race also remains a protected characteristic. This goes without saying.

I believe that feelings around this may be high and I can understand if a WOC has a personal experience which enables her to compare racism and sexism. This is an interesting, valid and enlightening discussion.

However, if we start to let these feelings, however valid, justify an erosion of any existing legal protection, I believe that we are on a slippery slope. I also think that it may prevent us from working effectively together- which would be a shame as we need all help we can get.

Actually I wonder if she had been black would the suggestion would have been made to her ? Middle- class white women seem to be fair game at the moment but given black lives matter and Black Lives Matter I wonder if they would actually have given more pause at asking a black woman to move.

I think if a man asks to move because he doesn't want to sit next to a woman then the MAN should be the one to move. It's his problem and he should be the one inconvenienced.

Yes! Why do we pander to these people? They should move

It's the man who should move seats not the other way around.

Can men be non-binary too...

"But then what happens if a trans person needs a seat? Given this is most certainly a sex based clash, how do you circle that square with gender identity?"
They sit in the seat for the gender they associate with surely? Assuming they're a trans woman. If they're a transman, they sit with the women. If they're non binary they sit with the women. Easy.

I do recognise that I although I will experience sexism, I will never experience racism - but think it’s important to listen to those who have experienced it alongside sexism.

So you were telling other women how they're allowed to feel... not even based on your own individual experience, but on behalf of other women (which you assume all share the same beliefs and feelings, based on their sex and skin colour)? Wow.

And me thinking that feminism was, above everything else, about recognising that women are individuals.

By the way, just because you're (presumably) white doesn't mean you'll never experience racism, that's just silly. You would definitely experience racism in certain countries, where you'd very much be a minority.

No one, certainly not the airline, should even be contemplating a solution to this man's prejudice - other than sit down or get off
This.
He's entitled to his beliefs.
Legal precedent says airline cannot discriminate regarding seating to accommodate this.
Woman is justifiably pissed off at being treated as inferior and expected to budge up.
It's a good example of a clash of rights that doesn't have a simple resolution. One way is for the person who wants to control who they sit with to book extra seats. But you might say that's unfair too.
I can see the logic in designating some seats single sex, but only if you do it for women too. But then what happens if a trans person needs a seat? Given this is most certainly a sex based clash, how do you circle that square with gender identity?
Airlines need to be sensitive to their customers, but in this situation I can't see how to please everyone.

I disagree that the logical conclusion of my opinion is that the woman should put up with this.

I appreciate those who have taken the time to explain their thinking without attributing words to me which I have never expressed.

It’s also fine for white women to feel that a person’s race can be more damaging in terms of discrimination than their sex in many situations. I also think it is probably pretty clear when there is racism for the person who is experiencing it, even if it doesn’t seem clear to those of us who will never experience it.

But I did sidetrack from this issue for which I apologise and will shut up now.

But on a practical level I still don't understand the question others have asked: why is the woman asked to move? Why isn't it the men who get moved?

On a fairness level, I believe the men should have had to move (or being told to put up with it). On a practical level, it's probably easier to move one person to reach a solution that satisfies the parameters than several (as demonstrated by 4 people having to swap seats), as that would require finding more people who are willing to move (she was asked, not ordered, not that this was fair).

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. (If a distinction is even possible, which I should imagine is often quite difficult).

The point is, the law regards them both equally, in terms of protected characteristics.

This woman was discriminated against on the basis of her sex. She was considered so lesser than, that a man wouldn't, couldn't even sit next to her.

No one, certainly not the airline, should even be contemplating a solution to this man's prejudice - other than sit down or get off.

But on a practical level I still don't understand the question others have asked: why is the woman asked to move? Why isn't it the men who get moved? Serious, if dumb, question. I don't get it.

Sexism. Patriarchy, innit.

I was lso going to say that I can't believe he wasn't the one expected to move. But then I thought actually, sadly, I can well believe it. Good luck to her with her case.

I think, Freda, that saying race discrimination goes deeper than sex discrimination as a general principle has been interpreted as playing top trumps. I'm an immigrant to where I live (albeit white, but my colouring is one associated with specific ethnic minorities in the country I live in and I have had all sorts of assumptions and overt xenopühobia thrown at me over my years here) so I have some degree of understanding of the issues (obviously nowhere near as much as someone non-white) and I think what cuts deeper is very, very individual to the person and the totality of their experience.

I also think that in a thread like this, suggesting that this woman should put up with this (you were not actually saying this, I get that, but that is the logical consequence of your position) because it wasn't personal and racism is - so she should have effectively top-trumped herself, iyswim - is going to be offensive to people.

I think the experience if being treated as less than fully human can be extremely wounding and take many forms. It is the basis of sexism, racism, ableism, ageism etc and while they may all be different in how they manifest, the underlying structure is the same: the expression to a person that she is worth less than others because of an inborn or immutable characteristic. It is morally wrong and I don't think we can say one type of ism is worse than another, though I suppose we could compare discrete events (was the slave trade worse than foot binding type discussions that in my opinion are divisive, ahistorical and pointless). I believe there is a moral imperative not to discriminate or mistreat people based on their immutable characteristics, whatever they may be.

If the men's religion prevents them from respecting other people's civil rights, such as being treated like the expendable human in this situation, then why are they travelling in a public conveyance at all?

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.

But on a practical level I still don't understand the question others have asked: why is the woman asked to move? Why isn't it the men who get moved? Serious, if dumb, question. I don't get it.

I think the woman is a bit of an opportunist to be honest.

What utter nonsense.

The only way she could be an opportunist is if she was given inside information pre flight that there would be men on the flight who will refuse to sit next to women - so she orchestrated it so that she could sit next to them.

The men orchestrated it due to male prejudice and entitlement. Nothing else.

Stop blaming women.

The men need to book seats with a spare seat if necessary if they don't want to sit next to a woman. I bet there are women who would struggle to sit so close next to a man due to trauma and I imagine that's what they would do.