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

[stumbledin]

I cant believe this is still happening. There have been court cases about this for at least the past ten years which have always support women.
www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/easyjet-sue-luton-tel-aviv-discrimination-orthodox-melanie-wolfson-a9693641.html

Earlier cases:
2015 www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/aboard-flights-conflicts-over-seat-assignments-and-religion.html
2017 www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/el-al-israeli-airline-orthodox-jewish-men-women-seats-flights-gender-segregation-a7804716.html
2018 airline says it will no longer accommodate Orthodox Jewish men who refuse to sit next to women
2020 www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/07/klm-breached-discrimination-law-by-asking-woman-to-move-for-orthodox-jewish-man/

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 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.

"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.

Can men be non-binary too...

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

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

@FredaFrogspawn

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.

Your argument boils down to women should be less upset by sex discrimination because people who aren't white suffer discrimination; even in a situation like this where race had nothing to do with it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

*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

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.

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.

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.

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.