Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel News
Reload this Page >

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

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

Reply

Old Jan 6, 09, 12:28 am
  #1  
Hvr
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Programs: QC WP/OWE, LTG:
Posts: 1,583
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

An airline passenger 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.
Hvr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 12:56 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Programs: BA EC Gold
Posts: 9,234
Originally Posted by Hvr View Post
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.
ajax is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 7:19 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Citizen of the world
Programs: Aeroplan,Skymiles, HiltonHonors, SPG
Posts: 20,182
Originally Posted by Hvr View Post
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
dodo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 7:24 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LAX; CLE
Programs: UA, AA
Posts: 187
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.
johnnybgood3 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 7:37 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ATL, BHM, DUB, County Wexford
Programs: DL DM, AA ExPlt, Diamond HH & HY
Posts: 2,917
Very bad decision.
EasternTraveler is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 9:11 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Programs: AA MM, DL PM, UA MM, IC Plat Amb, Hyatt Plat
Posts: 3,026
Originally Posted by johnnybgood3 View Post
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.
mikew99 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 10:48 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,484
Originally Posted by johnnybgood3 View Post
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.
ralfp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 10:55 am
  #8  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,235
and also being discussed over here (post 145) in a rather lengthy thread which covers the actual incident
goalie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 12:24 pm
  #9  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,539
Originally Posted by EasternTraveler View Post
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.
PhlyingRPh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 12:27 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 540
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.
AusEuroFlyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 12:45 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,484
Originally Posted by AusEuroFlyer View Post
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.
ralfp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 2:24 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 540
Originally Posted by ralfp View Post
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.
AusEuroFlyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 2:42 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: MYOFB
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by mikew99 View Post
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.
stupidhead is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 3:37 pm
  #14  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 86,712
$2.4 million would have been better. At least then airline shareholders would start paying attention more.
GUWonder is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 09, 4:07 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,484
Originally Posted by AusEuroFlyer View Post
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).
ralfp is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread