Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

TSA makes ?nominal? payment to settle suit over exposing 24-year-old?s breasts

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

TSA makes ‘nominal’ payment to settle suit over exposing 24-year-old’s breasts

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 12:18 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riverside County, CA
Posts: 277
TSA makes ‘nominal’ payment to settle suit over exposing 24-year-old’s breasts

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/t...exposure-suit/

A woman who had her breasts exposed during an airport search by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was to receive a "nominal" payment as a part of the settlement.

The 24-year-old woman was selected for "extended search procedures" prior to boarding a plane to Amarillo, Texas in 2008.

A lawsuit claimed that the TSA agent pulled her blouse completely down while frisking her.

Raw Story decided against republishing the woman's name and photograph due to the nature of her ordeal.

"As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated," the lawsuit alleged.

"For an extended period of time" other agents made jokes about the incident. "One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that 'he would just have to watch the video.'"

Documents filed in US District Court last week revealed that the case had been settled.

Jerry McLaughlin, the victim's lawyer, described the payout as "nominal."

When asked if she received more than $100,000, McLaughlin laughed and said it "way less than that. It wasn’t a whole lot of money."

He added that his client would never have sued if the TSA had simply sent a letter apologizing.

She "was never interested in the money," McLaughlin said.
Another article I found:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...-exposure-suit

JANUARY 13--The woman who sued the Transportation Security Administration after her breasts were exposed during a frisking at a Texas airport will receive a “nominal” payment from the government as part of a legal settlement, The Smoking Gun has learned.

The settlement was disclosed in documents filed last week in U.S. District Court in Amarillo, where Lynsie Murley last year filed a lawsuit accusing the TSA of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with the May 2008 incident at the Corpus Christi airport.

Murley’s lawyer, Jerry McLaughlin, declined to disclose the exact amount of money that his client is receiving, but termed the payout a “nominal settlement.” Asked if the amount hit six figures, McLaughlin laughed loudly and said the negotiated payment was “way less than that. It wasn’t a whole lot of money.” Murley, he said, “was never interested in the money,” and would not have filed a lawsuit if TSA officials had simply sent her a letter of apology.

Murley is pictured above in a photo from her Facebook page.

The 24-year-old Murley alleged that after being “singled out for extended search procedures,” a TSA agent frisked her and “pulled Plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing Plaintiff’s breasts to everyone in the area.” Her complaint noted that, “as would be expected,” Murley was “extremely embarrassed and humiliated.”

Murley charged that TSA employees “joked and laughed about the incident for an extended period of time.” After leaving the security line to be “consoled by an acquaintance who had brought her to the airport,” Murley returned to the line, where a male TSA worker said that he had wished he was there when she first passed through. The employee, Murley recalled, added that “he would just have to watch the video.”

The court settlement was reached shortly after government lawyers deposed Murley. The agreement, McLaughlin said, “got her some justice.” (5 pages)

Last edited by Deinonychus; Jan 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm Reason: Found another article about the same thing
Deinonychus is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 12:45 pm
  #2  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Just another waste of money by the TSA.

It's too bad the DSOs won't be paying out-of-pocket for the settlement, and instead it'll be paid by the taxpayers.

Fire 'em all.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 12:56 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
'he would just have to watch the video'.
Yeah, bet that one didn't get "lost". TTIUWP though.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 1:20 pm
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
30 Countries Visited
1M
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, IHG Plat Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 22,651
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
Yeah, bet that one didn't get "lost". TTIUWP though.
TSA would never do that! Why would you doubt what they said?!
FriendlySkies is online now  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 1:51 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: IAD
Posts: 2,060
Can she sue the TSO's themselves for assault?
jcwoman is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 1:55 pm
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
No, she can't. They would argue that they were performing their duties, and the Federal Government would protect them on that basis.

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 1:55 pm
  #7  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,678
Shall I FOIA try to the settlement agreement?
Ari is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 3:11 pm
  #8  
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
It was professionalism at it's finest that day

(while her picture and name appears in the stories she's done interviews for, I deleted her name in the cut and paste below, she shouldn't search for herself and end up here)

A TSA agent is alleged to have frisked Ms ****** and 'pulled Plaintiff's blouse completely down, exposing Plaintiff's breasts to everyone in the area'.

The TSA are accused to have 'joked and laughed about the incident for an extended period of time'.

After Ms ****** left the security line to be 'consoled by an acquintance who had brought her to the airport', she returned to the line only to be told by a male TSA woprker that he wished he had been there when she passed through the first time.

According to Ms ******, the officer added that 'he would just have to watch the video'.

Ms ****** was awarded her settlement soon after she gave her deposition to government lawyers.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1AxJwCKcG

It never got to court, which is apparently too bad.
cordelli is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 4:02 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
Programs: AA lifetime Gold , DL Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 572
Hopefully as a result of the lawsuit, the TSA fired the TSO who pulled her blouse down and the TSO who made the sexist remark.

This does prove that the TSA can be sued in court in certain instances, maybe this will change attitudes of some of the TSO’s who feel they can not be held libel for their actions.

But in reality, wishful thinking.

Mr. Elliott
Mr. Elliott is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 4:28 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by Mr. Elliott
Hopefully as a result of the lawsuit, the TSA fired the TSO who pulled her blouse down and the TSO who made the sexist remark.

This does prove that the TSA can be sued in court in certain instances, maybe this will change attitudes of some of the TSO’s who feel they can not be held libel for their actions.

But in reality, wishful thinking.

Mr. Elliott
I doubt if they were fired. They were more than likely just retrained to not do that screening in public any more. Now if clothing needs to be pulled down, up or off. They take the passenger to the backroom where there is no cameras so then it didn't happen if the passenger doesn't have a witness of their own to witness the screening.
Lara21 is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 4:59 pm
  #11  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by cordelli
Ms ****** was awarded her settlement soon after she gave her deposition to government lawyers.
Undoubtedly, they waited to evaluate what kind of witness she would make in court. She carried herself well in the deposition, didn't get rattled, stuck to her story, so they decided they better settle rather than see a substantial award from a jury.

The whole story just makes me sick.

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 5:01 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
Originally Posted by Lara21
They were more than likely just retrained to not do that screening in public any more.
No, everybody had a few yucks and then back to work as usual.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 8:39 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
We have had unintentional events like that before. The two that I recall are both the results of loose clothes and the gloves that we wear. The gloves are "takcy" on one side and tend to grip clothing. The difference is that the officers that were in these events did not make remarks about it.
eyecue is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 9:01 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 43
<never mind>

Last edited by Persepolis; Jan 16, 2011 at 5:54 am Reason: This post makes no sense, since Cholula removed some of the context
Persepolis is offline  
Old Jan 13, 2011 | 10:31 pm
  #15  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by eyecue
We have had unintentional events like that before. The two that I recall are both the results of loose clothes and the gloves that we wear. The gloves are "takcy" on one side and tend to grip clothing. The difference is that the officers that were in these events did not make remarks about it.
Well, gee, THAT makes it all better.
Munch is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.