Originally Posted by
spin88
(1) United conducted an investigation
(2) after that investigation - in which I am sure they talked to the entire crew, ground staff, and reached out to customers around the passengers (such as her seat mate that got the beer) - United reached some conclusions
(3) If they concluded the FA did nothing wrong, then they appologize for the offense if any, give their side of the story. No way they go with a made up story and get the blank sued out of them, or
(4) they conclude something happened and the FA said something inappropriate and offensive, and then took action.
Clearly UA did (1), (2), and (4). They did not do (3), ipso facto, the FA did something wrong/offensive. It may have been the result of a flip comment, not well though out (perhaps subconscious) or it may have been overt bigotry. Who knows, but the result is the same in a customer service business. Motive is really not important, only what was actually said.
I don't disagree with you but do conclude this either. Corporations often make "fall guys" to cover PR incidents. We've all seen it. Even if you take the passenger's word as 100% accurate, nothing was said that referenced a protected characteristic. Intent on party a is not always how party b perceives things. It can also be a predisposition on party b to overly generalize things as being a slight, I.e., their own bias.
But as with many corporations, the appearance of wrong doing can be enough to elicit a response. Defending an action goes over in the court of public opinion worse than an apology. We will never know the truth, only what both sides have done after the incident, and PR responses have, to me at least, never been taken as actual guilt or innocence