Originally Posted by
embarcadero1
In a civil case, establishing the plaintiff's state of mind (that the FA had threatened the illegitimate use of force, had humiliated the plaintiff) is perfectly legitimate, and no proof of an assault (as defined in criminal statutes) is required. Determining whether or not an assault took place is the role of a criminal court.
In a civil case, it's enough to establish that the FA's behavior was out of line, against company policy and had a significant deleterious effect on the plaintiff. There is no charge of assault in a civil claim. A plaintiff would make a claim for damages caused by the FA's actions and, by extension, UA's failure to take reasonable steps to keep the FA's outrageous behavior from causing damage.
This is not a correct statement of the law--at least not U.S. law. A civil lawsuit must allege a cause of action, such as assault (which has both criminal and civil forms), or breach of contract, or fraud, negligence, etc. It's not enough to simply claim "damages"; you have to specify a cause of action which entitles you to damages. And in a civil case, determining whether such an assault (or other cause of action alleged) occurred is absolutely the role of the civil court.
If the defendant didn't do anything that the law recognizes a cause of action for, you won't get damages, no matter how distressed you actually were. (For example, if the defendant simply gave you an extremely mean glare, which made you very angry, and ruined your day, causing you to underperform at an important business meeting and fail to win a contract...you will not recover damages. Because you can't sue for a glare.)
Originally Posted by
embarcadero1
Everyone who employes private security guards - or even anyone charged with enforcing security - needs to understand this. The illegitimate use of force, or threats to use force, can and do expose corporations to significant liability. FA's should know this, and think about it before they get carried away on some FAA-inspired power trip. Their powers are really quite limited.
This may (or may not) be true. But if it's true, it's not be because of the paragraphs that you wrote above.
Actual liability would depend on the circumstances, but generally speaking, my guess is that someone who was actually "manhandled" out the door by security
might have a claim (and maybe a losing claim in the end), but someone who was simply threatened with being removed by security, and was not actually removed, and suffered no other consequences, most likely has no claim at all.