Newsstand - 240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

An airline passenger (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=090106002219.dz59dzap&show_article=1) forced to cover his T-shirt because it displayed Arabic script has been awarded 240,000 dollars in compensation, campaigners said Monday.

Raed Jarrar received the pay out on Friday from two US Transportation Security Authority officials and from JetBlue Airways following the August 2006 incident at New York's JFK Airport, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced.

Not enough and I bet those responsible don't have to cough up but at least it is a start in the right direction.

Not enough and I bet those responsible don't have to cough up but at least it is a start in the right direction.
Fantastic. I hope this gets more coverage. It's about time the lunacy taking over the US is seriously curtailed.

Not enough and I bet those responsible don't have to cough up but at least it is a start in the right direction.

Amen

Although it's a really bad thing, that guy doesn't deserve $240,000 for being forced to cover up his shirt. I'm sure attorneys collected a large portion of that too. They definitely deserve to be punished for around this amount but I don't think the recipients incurred damages in anywhere near that amount.

Very bad decision.

Although it's a really bad thing, that guy doesn't deserve $240,000 for being forced to cover up his shirt. I'm sure attorneys collected a large portion of that too. They definitely deserve to be punished for around this amount but I don't think the recipients incurred damages in anywhere near that amount.

The problem is, the only thing these big companies understand is money. They don't respect personal rights, or common sense, ethics, or morals, or anything else. Unless you cost them money, they simply won't change their behavior.

It's pretty clear that the amount is punitive, not compensatory. I only hope that it's high enough for JetBlue not to even think about doing this again.

Although it's a really bad thing, that guy doesn't deserve $240,000 for being forced to cover up his shirt. I'm sure attorneys collected a large portion of that too. They definitely deserve to be punished for around this amount but I don't think the recipients incurred damages in anywhere near that amount.

The lawyers are the ones who did the grunt work necessary to get this award. They were the ones fighting the inane injustice, and they should be compensated for that. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that only wealthy people with plenty of free time should ever mount a challenge against this kind of injustice.

and also being discussed over here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/724322-man-sues-tsa-b6-4.html) (post 145) in a rather lengthy thread which covers the actual incident

Very bad decision.

Completely agree. He should gave gotten at least ten times that amount and should also have been able to sue the individuals, as opposed to the "man" - a very, very inadequate payout indeed. Justice has not been served. :td:

I believe that damages paid to the "victim" should be limited to something that is commensurate with suffering inflicted. Probably 0.1% of that amount (i.e. $240) should be enough for having to cover up his T-shirt.

However, I would like to see total damages payable by the officials, TSA bosses and TSA to be multiplied by 10 from the current sum to $2,400,000, with two officials footing 10% each, bosses of TSA 40%, and TSA as an organisation footing the rest.
It should then hurt enough for them not to behave in a similar way again.

I'd then like to see the money going to a proper good cause (that does not mean anything to do with moronic security measures - perhaps 'save lots of puppy dogs funds' or something), or split up and refunded to taxpayers of the US assuming the TSA is funded by tax.

But that'll never happen.

I believe that damages paid to the "victim" should be limited to something that is commensurate with suffering inflicted. Probably 0.1% of that amount (i.e. $240) should be enough for having to cover up his T-shirt.

You realize that this would make it impossible for any non-wealthy person to take this kind of action? $240 would probably come nowhere near covering his expenses (transport, communication, time) for the lawsuit.

$240k is nothing to the airlines and the TSA. The guy in question will probably see no more than a small fraction of this money anyways.

You realize that this would make it impossible for any non-wealthy person to take this kind of action? $240 would probably come nowhere near covering his expenses (transport, communication, time) for the lawsuit.

$240k is nothing to the airlines and the TSA. The guy in question will probably see no more than a small fraction of this money anyways.

The costs/expenses to be covered by the defendants - I was only talking about damages that the plaintiff receives 'in hand' so to speak. It's obvious that costs/expenses can't be covered by $240.

The problem is, the only thing these big companies understand is money. They don't respect personal rights, or common sense, ethics, or morals, or anything else. Unless you cost them money, they simply won't change their behavior.

It's pretty clear that the amount is punitive, not compensatory. I only hope that it's high enough for JetBlue not to even think about doing this again.

As much as I like jetBlue this isn't enough. The person should have been awarded at least 10x what was awarded plus legal and court costs.

$2.4 million would have been better. At least then airline shareholders would start paying attention more.

The costs/expenses to be covered by the defendants - I was only talking about damages that the plaintiff receives 'in hand' so to speak. It's obvious that costs/expenses can't be covered by $240.

I was not aware that plaintiff's costs, such as lost work hours, gas, phone bills, mailing costs, etc., were covered by the defendants (other than coming out of the award).

I was not aware that plaintiff's costs, such as lost work hours, gas, phone bills, mailing costs, etc., were covered by the defendants (other than coming out of the award).

I'm talking purely hypothetically here (basically said in jest), not about this specific case, and neither am I following how things are done in the US courts and neither do I claim to know anything about the US court system in the first place. 0.1% of 240k I mentioned was purely what I personally felt was probably suitable for 'pain and suffering' of having to cover up the T-shirt (and not including lost earnings etc). None of it was meant to be taken too seriously.

I guess if the award for 'pain and suffering' is limited to something commensurate with the actual pain and suffering, it doesn't give people any incentive to bring it to court and that could do the whole process some harm by letting officials and organisations get away with inappropriate behaviour.

Raed Jarrar
I knew that name was familiar. He is the buddy of Salam Pax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salam_Pax), the Baghdad Blogger from "Where's Raed" (http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/)

Both blogs were great to read when the coalition were chasing that "obscure" WMD:rolleyes:

Well good for him ^

Very bad decision.

Right. I think it wasn't their decision where Arabs are discrimination against of B6 agents.

This is a good outcome but it could be better if it required the TSA and JetBlue parties to pay much more money than $240,000.

There is nothing bad about this outcome -- except in the heads of racists and other bigoted nervous nellies like Annie the Paranoid Bigot Jacobson. She and her fans must now be very scared. :D

This is a good outcome but it could be better if it required the TSA and JetBlue parties to pay much more money than $240,000.

There is nothing bad about this outcome -- except in the heads of racists and other bigoted nervous nellies like Annie the Paranoid Bigot Jacobson. She and her fans must now be very scared. :D
She is still bigoted but as someone who started her professional writing career as a business and finance journalist, she has turned her sights outside the US but still aiming at her "usual suspects". Surprising and laughable that she has not written any article about Russian drug cum white slavery lords because she knows that won't go down well. Still making money selling stories on fear :rolleyes:

Maybe he should have got a free ticket or something. Some slime lawyer screws B6 out of $240K for a trivial mistake? This country is in real trouble when this much money is awarded for a simple mistake.

A few people should have been fired, and the airline should have received a hefty fine. Along with a lot of bad press.

A large civil judgement is ridiculous. The lasting harm was zip. I bet any of us would agree to be "humiliated" in this way for $2400, let alone $240K. Sign me up to be the next one, if I'm to get a judgement like that.

What a ridiculous decision.

Each one of us have suffered many more affronts and indignities in our lives than this the trivial request to cover up some Arabic writing.

Today someone cut me off in traffic. Perhaps he owes me $500,000.00

Another time a cop gave me a ticket and I'm sure I wasn't speeding. Must be discrimination. How about I sue for 10 million dollars.

This guy suffered no injury and he has clearly sought official victim status to earn a financial reward. Poor suffering victim who had to cover up his tee-shirt. I knew (before he died) an Auschwitz survivor who never played up the victim role, he just got on with his life and career. I have also met refugees from communist countries, a man whose daughter was kidnapped and murdered, parents whose kid may die of cancer, etc. These people are real victims. Interestingly, real victims tend to not demand compensation or pity, they just get on with things.

If I were ordered to cover up a tee-shirt I would be mildly ticked off, then I would get on with my day as I have more important things to worry about.

The tee-shirt "victim" should have received a sum of money equivalent to the value of his emotional suffering (ie. 25 cents) and been forced to pay the defendants' costs out of his own pocket due to his abuse of the court system.

Each one of us have suffered many more affronts and indignities in our lives than this the trivial request to cover up some Arabic writing.
I would venture that you've never been discriminated against because of your ethnic background.

The tee-shirt "victim" should have received a sum of money equivalent to the value of his emotional suffering (ie. 25 cents) and been forced to pay the defendants' costs out of his own pocket due to his abuse of the court system.
The money was awarded as punitive measures against the airline for discriminating against its customer, not as compensatory damages for the affronted.

What a ridiculous decision.

Each one of us have suffered many more affronts and indignities in our lives than this the trivial request to cover up some Arabic writing.

An inability to understand the importance of this decision in this day and age means you will never appreciate it's significance and future benefit to you as well as those who are prone to being profiled because of their religion or ethnicity.

The money was awarded as punitive measures against the airline for discriminating against its customer, not as compensatory damages for the affronted.

That's what's wrong with the decision. :)

That's what's wrong with the decision. :)
But levying large punitive damages is how the US system keeps companies in line.

In Europe, we have laws (oh, do we have laws).

In the US, we have courts.

That's what's wrong with the decision. :)

How is the fact that the law allows awards that make it possible to sue wrong? Awarding actual damages (probably <$100) would make this kind of suit impossible. What alternative, if any, do you suggest?

There is nothing bad about this outcome -- except in the heads of racists and other bigoted nervous nellies like Annie the Paranoid Bigot Jacobson. She and her fans must now be very scared. :D

With only rare exception, proven yet again.

What alternative, if any, do you suggest?A few people should have been fired, and the airline should have received a hefty fine. Along with a lot of bad press.

I would venture that you've never been discriminated against because of your ethnic background.

And I would bet that you've never been held hostage by a frivolous lawsuit.

(And I have been discriminated against because of my ethnic background, although not in any way that I would consider serious - as far as I know, at least.)

I would venture that you've never been discriminated against because of your ethnic background.

I have been discriminated against on the basis of my ethnic background. For example, when I checked out an employer's booth at a job fair years ago in university, I was told that this employer (a branch of my federal government) was no longer hiring white anglophone males as they had exceeded their quota. And when applying to professional school, I again faced strict racial and gender-based quotas which worked both against me as a male and in my favour as a Caucasian (we don't have a quota, we just admit 50% females and 15% Asians to every year's entering class, just by coincidence).

Both of these example are much more serious and potentially life-altering than being told to cover up an offensive tee-shirt.

I have been discriminated against on the basis of my ethnic background. For example, when I checked out an employer's booth at a job fair years ago in university, I was told that this employer (a branch of my federal government) was no longer hiring white anglophone males as they had exceeded their quota. And when applying to professional school, I again faced strict racial and gender-based quotas which worked both against me as a male and in my favour as a Caucasian (we don't have a quota, we just admit 50% females and 15% Asians to every year's entering class, just by coincidence).

Both of these example are much more serious and potentially life-altering than being told to cover up an offensive tee-shirt.

"We are not hiring white anglophone males", just non-English-speakers? Why don't I believe that. :rolleyes:

In this t-shirt matter, being an anglophone male didn't work against him.

Both of these example are much more serious and potentially life-altering than being told to cover up an offensive tee-shirt.

So what? The Holocaust was more serious than the internment of Japanese during WWII. Stealing $100 is worse than stealing $50. Does that make stealing $50 any less wrong?

It doesn't change the fact that the TSA thought that the exposure of an Arabic phrase made a person dangerous. It doesn't change the fact that those entrusted with our protection believed that a dangerous person could be made safe by forcing him to wear a different article of clothing.

It doesn't change the fact that the TSA thought that the exposure of an Arabic phrase made a person dangerous. It doesn't change the fact that those entrusted with our protection believed that a dangerous person could be made safe by forcing him to wear a different article of clothing.
Exactly. The sheer idiocy employed here is simply mind-boggling.

If the man were really a danger to his fellow passengers, would he be so stupid as to wear a t-shirt with Arabic script? Would covering up the Arabic script actually neutralise the danger?

And these people are supposed to protect us.

Exactly. The sheer idiocy employed here is simply mind-boggling.

If the man were really a danger to his fellow passengers, would he be so stupid as to wear a t-shirt with Arabic script? Would covering up the Arabic script actually neutralise the danger?

And these people are supposed to protect us.

They protect no one - not even their own backsides.

So what? The Holocaust was more serious than the internment of Japanese during WWII. Stealing $100 is worse than stealing $50. Does that make stealing $50 any less wrong?

It doesn't change the fact that the TSA thought that the exposure of an Arabic phrase made a person dangerous. It doesn't change the fact that those entrusted with our protection believed that a dangerous person could be made safe by forcing him to wear a different article of clothing.

Ralf, agree with most of what you say. But even as a white, German, young, non-Jewish male I'd venture to say that the Holocaust was more serious than the internment of Japanese in the US during WWII. And if you think about it you'd certainly agree. Both were wrong in principle but while the internment of Japanese as well as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have the same basic unrightful principles as a concentration camp they are not devised for genocide per se.

Otherwise, I was also outraged by the story and find that $240k are probably not causing enough pain for the two entities. 2.4 mil plus rolling heads in the upper echelons would be nicer. The injury to the man was in form of insult. This can be severe. It is discrimination based on race, skin color and perhaps religion PLUS based on political opinion. This kind of stuff does hurt an individual. Knowing about the victims background he probably knew this might happen and might have been quite happy with it because it gives good publicity. Still, I think he should get enough money to have some custom tailored shirts by Charvet of Paris with hand-embroidered arab lettering in gold thread which he can wear while sitting in F, where Jetblue should have been forced to give him free priority seating plus one partner seat for the remainder of his life. Now, that would have been great!