Business Liability w/new TSA Screening Procedures
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Arlington, VA
Programs: HH Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 252
Business Liability w/new TSA Screening Procedures
I travel about 2 times per month and have had the enhanced patdowns twice in the past few weeks that involve innappropriate touching that would be perceived by most as sexual assualt. Outside the security area, what was done would be a jailable offense.
I work for a small company and manage a large program with numerous employees, some of whom have to travel for work. My concern is that since employees are on the clock while travelling and the patdowns could be a tramatic experience, our company may be liable or have to make accomodations to correct the hostile work environment. To me this is no different than having an employee working at a client site where harassment is going on. If we don't correct the situation, we can be sued.
This TSA change is new enough that HRs probably haven't had a chance to digest it, but if this TSA procedure becomes SOP I can see all kinds of problems down the line for our company and any other business that has employees travelling. I know personally if I have to go through that patdown most every time I get on an airplane, I'm seriously going to reconsider how and when I travel.
I work for a small company and manage a large program with numerous employees, some of whom have to travel for work. My concern is that since employees are on the clock while travelling and the patdowns could be a tramatic experience, our company may be liable or have to make accomodations to correct the hostile work environment. To me this is no different than having an employee working at a client site where harassment is going on. If we don't correct the situation, we can be sued.
This TSA change is new enough that HRs probably haven't had a chance to digest it, but if this TSA procedure becomes SOP I can see all kinds of problems down the line for our company and any other business that has employees travelling. I know personally if I have to go through that patdown most every time I get on an airplane, I'm seriously going to reconsider how and when I travel.
#2
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
I travel about 2 times per month and have had the enhanced patdowns twice in the past few weeks that involve innappropriate touching that would be perceived by most as sexual assualt. Outside the security area, what was done would be a jailable offense.
I work for a small company and manage a large program with numerous employees, some of whom have to travel for work. My concern is that since employees are on the clock while travelling and the patdowns could be a tramatic experience, our company may be liable or have to make accomodations to correct the hostile work environment. To me this is no different than having an employee working at a client site where harassment is going on. If we don't correct the situation, we can be sued.
This TSA change is new enough that HRs probably haven't had a chance to digest it, but if this TSA procedure becomes SOP I can see all kinds of problems down the line for our company and any other business that has employees travelling. I know personally if I have to go through that patdown most every time I get on an airplane, I'm seriously going to reconsider how and when I travel.
I work for a small company and manage a large program with numerous employees, some of whom have to travel for work. My concern is that since employees are on the clock while travelling and the patdowns could be a tramatic experience, our company may be liable or have to make accomodations to correct the hostile work environment. To me this is no different than having an employee working at a client site where harassment is going on. If we don't correct the situation, we can be sued.
This TSA change is new enough that HRs probably haven't had a chance to digest it, but if this TSA procedure becomes SOP I can see all kinds of problems down the line for our company and any other business that has employees travelling. I know personally if I have to go through that patdown most every time I get on an airplane, I'm seriously going to reconsider how and when I travel.
You have hit on a "side effect" of the pat downs/scanners that others have hinted at but not discussed as succinctly as you.
I would think that all employers who require employees to travel should be extremely concerned about their liability in this situation.
#3
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Very interesting point. I wonder if some "hostile workplace" complaints by groped frequent-business-travelers that named both TSA and large-company employers might get the companies to start lobbying against TSA.
Big companies are all about risk management and mitigation when it comes to harassment claims and they aren't going to want to leave themselves open to liability.
Big companies are all about risk management and mitigation when it comes to harassment claims and they aren't going to want to leave themselves open to liability.
#4
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
I travel about 2 times per month and have had the enhanced patdowns twice in the past few weeks that involve innappropriate touching that would be perceived by most as sexual assualt. Outside the security area, what was done would be a jailable offense.
I work for a small company and manage a large program with numerous employees, some of whom have to travel for work. My concern is that since employees are on the clock while travelling and the patdowns could be a tramatic experience, our company may be liable or have to make accomodations to correct the hostile work environment. To me this is no different than having an employee working at a client site where harassment is going on. If we don't correct the situation, we can be sued.
This TSA change is new enough that HRs probably haven't had a chance to digest it, but if this TSA procedure becomes SOP I can see all kinds of problems down the line for our company and any other business that has employees travelling. I know personally if I have to go through that patdown most every time I get on an airplane, I'm seriously going to reconsider how and when I travel.
I work for a small company and manage a large program with numerous employees, some of whom have to travel for work. My concern is that since employees are on the clock while travelling and the patdowns could be a tramatic experience, our company may be liable or have to make accomodations to correct the hostile work environment. To me this is no different than having an employee working at a client site where harassment is going on. If we don't correct the situation, we can be sued.
This TSA change is new enough that HRs probably haven't had a chance to digest it, but if this TSA procedure becomes SOP I can see all kinds of problems down the line for our company and any other business that has employees travelling. I know personally if I have to go through that patdown most every time I get on an airplane, I'm seriously going to reconsider how and when I travel.
#5
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
#6
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Arlington, VA
Programs: HH Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 252
If you knowingly put an employee in harms way (physical or mental) without their consent, you can be held liable. Even with consent, there are still liability risks depending on risk management and identification of alternative solutions.
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,103
#10
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 889
i just dont understand on this website how so many take their feelings about the TSA out on those that have no control over the policies and procedures that are put into place.
#11
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North of DFW
Programs: AA PLT, HH Gold, TSA Disparager Gold, going for Platnium
Posts: 1,535
obviously you dont agree with the TSA procedures but how does calling an employee thats just following what they've been directed to do, a pervert, acomplish anything??
i just dont understand on this website how so many take their feelings about the TSA out on those that have no control over the policies and procedures that are put into place.
i just dont understand on this website how so many take their feelings about the TSA out on those that have no control over the policies and procedures that are put into place.
Personally I agree with many other posters and calling it like i see it.
Last edited by essxjay; Nov 9, 2010 at 7:54 pm Reason: Going Godwin
#12
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: here and there
Programs: EB*G, UA ex1K
Posts: 570
This TSA change is new enough that HRs probably haven't had a chance to digest it, but if this TSA procedure becomes SOP I can see all kinds of problems down the line for our company and any other business that has employees travelling. I know personally if I have to go through that patdown most every time I get on an airplane, I'm seriously going to reconsider how and when I travel.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15098773-post70.html
If women are significantly more affected than men (it has been reported that wearing a skirt is grounds for 'enhance patdown' and that women have been told that they will face long waits for female staff) then 'disparate impact' also becomes an issue.
Long term, I think it would be very sad if enough young women and teens have (or their friends have) such bad experiences that flying just becomes something to be endured when absolutely necessary -- and this influences their choice of college and profession. Stanford...yeah, but I'd have to fly like four times a year, yuck... Field hydrological engineer, omg none of my friends wants to do that...travel, ick
#13
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388
If not, then you really should stop dispensing legal advice.
Bad enough that folks of your ilk think you know what's best in the medical realm, now you think you're lawyers, too.
#14
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: PBI
Programs: DL 2.8 MM/PM, AA MM/GLD, Marriott LT Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,746
When the strip search machines were being tested last year, I discussed this with a good friend who is a Human Resources consultant for many large corporations and is often an expert witness in HR matters. I asked her whether in her professional opinion the strip search machines and patdowns could constitute a hostile work environment situation for those who are required to travel on business as part of their jobs.
She agreed that this absolutely would fall under those definitions if employees protested being subjected to these measures which were not an original term of their employment.
I've brought this up in a few threads since then including these:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...l#post15035883,
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...l#post14351735,
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...l#post13093023
with the thought that if enough major corporations (or unions....) were suddenly faced with these types of claims from their traveling workforce, it would provide impetus for these employers to lobby Congress.
The first time I broached the idea here last year (when WBIs were "only" in test in handful of airports), others scoffed at the idea of anyone going to their HR Department during a recession with this type of claim. The rapid deployment of these machines coupled with the enhanced patdowns, however, makes this a much more visible and viable opportunity to put a stop to this bizarre new government program requiring us to be strip searched or allow a government employee to run their hands over our bodies simply to do our jobs. Glad the OP started a separate thread to get some dialogue (and hopefully some action) going!
P.S. Not sure why there is an unhappy emoticon - that was not intentional! MODS, please remove the emoticon from the subject line - thanks.
She agreed that this absolutely would fall under those definitions if employees protested being subjected to these measures which were not an original term of their employment.
I've brought this up in a few threads since then including these:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...l#post15035883,
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...l#post14351735,
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...l#post13093023
with the thought that if enough major corporations (or unions....) were suddenly faced with these types of claims from their traveling workforce, it would provide impetus for these employers to lobby Congress.
The first time I broached the idea here last year (when WBIs were "only" in test in handful of airports), others scoffed at the idea of anyone going to their HR Department during a recession with this type of claim. The rapid deployment of these machines coupled with the enhanced patdowns, however, makes this a much more visible and viable opportunity to put a stop to this bizarre new government program requiring us to be strip searched or allow a government employee to run their hands over our bodies simply to do our jobs. Glad the OP started a separate thread to get some dialogue (and hopefully some action) going!
P.S. Not sure why there is an unhappy emoticon - that was not intentional! MODS, please remove the emoticon from the subject line - thanks.
Last edited by scoow; Nov 10, 2010 at 10:10 am Reason: remove post icon
#15
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
When the strip search machines were being tested last year, I discussed this with a good friend who is a Human Resources consultant for many large corporations and is often an expert witness in HR matters. I asked her whether in her professional opinion the strip search machines and patdowns could constitute a hostile work environment situation for those who are required to travel on business as part of their jobs.
She agreed that this would absolutely would fall under those definitions if employees protested being subjected to these measures which were not an original term of their employment.
I've brought this up in a few threads since then including this most recent post http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...l#post15035883, with the thought that if enough major corporations (or unions....) were suddenly faced with these types of claims from their traveling workforce, it would provide impetus for these employers to lobby Congress.
The first time I broached the idea here last year (when WBIs were "only" in test in handful of airports), others scoffed at the idea of anyone bringing going to their HR Deparment during a recession with this type of claim. The rapid deployment of these machines coupled with the enhanced patdowns, however, makes this a much more visible and viable opportunity to put a stop to this bizarre new government program requiring us to be strip searched or allow a government employee to run their hands over our bodies simply to do our jobs.
P.S. Not sure why there is an unhappy emoticon - that was not intentional!
She agreed that this would absolutely would fall under those definitions if employees protested being subjected to these measures which were not an original term of their employment.
I've brought this up in a few threads since then including this most recent post http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...l#post15035883, with the thought that if enough major corporations (or unions....) were suddenly faced with these types of claims from their traveling workforce, it would provide impetus for these employers to lobby Congress.
The first time I broached the idea here last year (when WBIs were "only" in test in handful of airports), others scoffed at the idea of anyone bringing going to their HR Deparment during a recession with this type of claim. The rapid deployment of these machines coupled with the enhanced patdowns, however, makes this a much more visible and viable opportunity to put a stop to this bizarre new government program requiring us to be strip searched or allow a government employee to run their hands over our bodies simply to do our jobs.
P.S. Not sure why there is an unhappy emoticon - that was not intentional!