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/

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@Datun

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.

I have fuck all intention of boning up on Israeli law, so can't say if the previous cases mentioned have set a precedent, as such.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

@CherryPavlova

I’m not sure why one protected characteristic trumps another. Both sex and religion are protected. It might have been better for the men to ask to move but it’s not really something I can get upset about. I personally think it’s better to try and negotiate a reasonable outcome.

Religion is a protected characteristic in the sense that it is illegal to discriminate against someone on account of their religion. It does not mean people can impose their religious views on others who do not share them.

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?

I think I would say that sex discrimination and race discrimination don't operate on the same basis, so it's not always correct to compare them. Race is very much a constructed entity, human beings are human beings. Sex on the other hand is an objective category that demands recognition in some circumstances.

So to me, this is a question of how do we deal with cultures that think differently about which of those circumstances around sex are significant or important, when they are all being thrown together on a space like an airplane.

My take on this type of thing is that while I understand why western style legal systems don't want to differentiate in this circumstance, I also think there is a valid observation in other cultures which wants to give some privacy or separation between men and women who don't know each other or have a family relationship, particularly where they are being squeezed together in very close quarters. If I were to flip the sexes around and it was women who wanted to avoid being stuck in such close quarters next to strange men, I think that makes a lot of sense to me - I'm a westerner brought up with almost no male/female segregation and I can be uncomfortable in economy class so close to men I don't know. To me these kinds of cultural norms aren't all about somehow discriminating against women, they are at least in part on a continuum with the kind of argument that says people need certain single sex spaces.

The suggestion upthread that airlines which fly in places where this is regularly an issue could designate a few rows as men only or women only seem like a good one to me. In fact I wonder, if they did that, that they wouldn't find that they were popular with other women as well.

@Eastie77 Because they were orthodox. Different to ultra orthodox.

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

The article is quite ambiguous, but reading it again, it looks like that might be the case.

She was sitting in the aisle seat and the son climbed over the back of his seat to get away from her, so he didn't have to touch her at all.

Which ever way you cut this up, the woman was in an awful position. I would absolutely hope that the cabin crew would intervene, in this situation. Awful though it is for them, too.

The suggestion upthread that airlines which fly in places where this is regularly an issue could designate a few rows as men only or women only seem like a good one to me.

When flights are full and a lot of families are on board, that would create problems. What if a woman wants to book the last seat on a fully booked flight but the only available seat is in a 'male' row? Should the airline lose out on her fare and the woman be unable to fly just because some men don't like sitting next to women?

The suggestion upthread that airlines which fly in places where this is regularly an issue could designate a few rows as men only or women only seem like a good one to me.

Except outfits like Easyjet will immediately charge extra, and you know there will be people who won't pay and try and use their protected characteristic to bump themselves up.

And that's before you consider that for some flights there may be more men wanting men-only than the plane has. Or women wanting women-only.

And what about men and women with a child ?

Probably a much simpler solution to all learn to live in peace and harmony. I know I'm a bit of a dreamer, but I really think it could take off as a movement. We'd need a book of course, telling us to love one another and be compassionate. But I reckon in a few thousand years it might get somewhere.

[quote sergeilavrov]@Eastie77 Because they were orthodox. Different to ultra orthodox.[/quote]
From a very dim memory ultra orthodox won't even use a light switch on the Sabbath ?

It's not quite that simple ... theydohave 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

Er don't think you've got that right. In a work place for example someone banging on about you should not eat meat on a Friday may well be harassing or even bullying fellow employees.

And bear in mind having no religious beliefs is protected too.

I hate the fact I share a faith with these people, although as I'm a convert I'd just be a shiksa bitch to them anyway.

@Goosefoot

I think I would say that sex discrimination and race discrimination don't operate on the same basis, so it's not always correct to compare them. Race is very much a constructed entity, human beings are human beings. Sex on the other hand is an objective category that demands recognition in some circumstances.

So to me, this is a question of how do we deal with cultures that think differently about which of those circumstances around sex are significant or important, when they are all being thrown together on a space like an airplane.

My take on this type of thing is that while I understand why western style legal systems don't want to differentiate in this circumstance, I also think there is a valid observation in other cultures which wants to give some privacy or separation between men and women who don't know each other or have a family relationship, particularly where they are being squeezed together in very close quarters. If I were to flip the sexes around and it was women who wanted to avoid being stuck in such close quarters next to strange men, I think that makes a lot of sense to me - I'm a westerner brought up with almost no male/female segregation and I can be uncomfortable in economy class so close to men I don't know. To me these kinds of cultural norms aren't all about somehow discriminating against women, they are at least in part on a continuum with the kind of argument that says people need certain single sex spaces.

The suggestion upthread that airlines which fly in places where this is regularly an issue could designate a few rows as men only or women only seem like a good one to me. In fact I wonder, if they did that, that they wouldn't find that they were popular with other women as well.

I can't begin to describe how profoundly depressing I find the argument that well maybe segregating on grounds of sex on an airplane might be OK.