Southwest Airlines Discrimination Case
Content
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION
1
Southwest Airlines Discrimination Case
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION
2
Southwest Airlines Discrimination Case Recently, a Southwest Airlines discrimination issue surfaced resulting from comments expressed by a Southwest pilot during a private conversation. The two minute conversation transpired on March 25, 2011 and was inadvertently broadcast over a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control frequency in the Houston, Texas area during a flight from Austin, Texas to San Diego, California. According to the accusations, the comments were perceived as demeaning and derogatory with regard to the Southwest Airlines flight attendant employee group. The intent of this paper is not to determine guilt or malice, but instead to present the facts presented from both sides of the argument. The legal definition of discrimination will be explored as well as opinions and views from several sources familiar with the accusations. Potential legal ramifications resulting from broadcasting non-essential transmissions over a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control frequency will also be presented. Furthermore, statutory, regulatory, and judicial activity with regard to this issue will be explored. The incident stemmed from comments made by an unidentified Southwest Airlines pilot who filled a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control frequency with a two minute open microphone rant of potential discriminatory swearing and anti-gay slurs. Included were complaints regarding the lack of attractive flight attendants available for potential dating. In addition, the pilot stated the Southwest Airlines flight attendant workforce in general was a collection of gays, grannies, and „grandes‟, referencing overweight, older women. The two major players in this case are the Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants Union and Southwest Airlines management. In response to the allegations, and in conjunction with issuing an official apology, Southwest Airlines suspended the pilot without pay. The airline
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION permitted the pilot to return to work after completing diversity training. The airline considered the incident as an isolated case and considered the conversation as „private'. The Southwest Airlines flight Attendants Union have considered filing a federal workplace discrimination complaint with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity
3
Commission based upon the statements made by the pilot. Despite an official apology offered by Southwest Airlines management, the union believes the airlines response and apology falls short of expectations. The union is “calling on Southwest Airlines to address this problem throughout our company, not as an isolated incident, but as a mandate that our workplace will be free from discrimination of all forms as a condition of continued employment” (Bingham). Despite the position of the union, Southwest Airlines management believes the diversity training and the public apology was an appropriate response to the incident.
Two possible actions must be considered to determine whether this incident involves any statutory activity. First, did the pilot violate any statutory laws by transmitting obscene, indecent, or profane language over ATC frequencies? Second, did the pilot provide a solid basis for a workplace discrimination complaint as expressed by the flight attendant union; both possibilities appear plausible based on the information provided?
Regarding the transmission made by the pilot via ATC frequencies, United States Code Title 18, paragraph 1464, provides insight regarding the broadcasting of obscene language. According to the code, “Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title [$10,000] or imprisoned not more than two years, or both” (Findlaw, 2011). Despite this code, the Federal Aviation Administration does not appear to be interested in pursuing legal action against the pilot. According to the Federal
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION Aviation Administration, "the incident occurred during a phase of flight in which personal conversations are permitted in the cockpit. Nevertheless, the Federal Aviation Administration expects a higher level of professionalism from flight crews, regardless of the circumstances" (Bingham). Based on the statement provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, further disciplinary actions on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration appears to be highly unlikely. The potential of establishing guilt based on a workplace discrimination complaint filed by the flight attendants union appears to be viable. Part 1604 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides guidelines on discrimination based on sex. Specifically, Title 29, Part 1604, Section 1604.11 further defines discrimination as conduct which, “has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment” (EEOC.gov). Clearly the comments expressed by the pilot fit this definition established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In addition, the comments expressed by the pilot when referencing certain flight attendants as „grannies and grandes‟, which refers to the women as overweight and old, fits the guidelines of harassment which can include, “offensive remarks about a person's age. Although
4
the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment” (EEOC.gov, 2011). Obviously the flight attendants union has a valid complaint should the decision to pursue the action be implemented. No regulatory activity appears to exist which may directly influence the actions or outcome of this incident. Although Title 29, Part 1604, Section 1604.11 applies to the actions and statements of the pilot, Appendix A of paragraph 1604.11 rescinds the designation.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION “§1604.11(c) of the Guidelines on Sexual Harassment, which set forth the standard of employer liability for harassment by supervisors. That section is no longer valid” (Justia.com, 2011). As written, paragraph 1604.11(c) never applied to this case and is currently designated in Title 29, part 1604, as „reserved‟. No evidence exists that supports whether the flight attendants union pursued the workplace discrimination complaint with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity
5
Commission. As a result, to date no judicial activity related to the issue has occurred. The union expressed a possibility regarding the pursuit of the complaint, but insisted the union‟s main goal was to establish guidelines within the airline to educate employees on workplace diversity and understanding, and not to necessarily pursue the legal action. Said Thom McDaniel Pres. of TWU Local 556 Representing Southwest Flight Attendants:"We are calling on Southwest Airlines to address this problem throughout our company, not as an isolated incident, but as a mandate that our workplace will be free from discrimination of all forms as a condition of continued employment. We have instructed our attorneys today to investigate the possibility of filing an EEOC charge with the federal government. We hope not to have to go that route, and instead, we are counting on Southwest Airlines to remedy this injustice. Bigotry in the workplace is bad business and unacceptable behavior on the ground and at 30,000 feet." (Towleroad.com) Considering to date no additional information regarding a workplace discrimination complaint related to this issue and filed by the Southwest flight attendants union can be located, an assumption can be made that the union accepted the corrective actions, apologies, and pilot diversity training provided by Southwest Airlines in response to this unfortunate incident.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION
6
The legal system provides valid definitions regarding workplace discrimination and sexual harassment. The content of the statements broadcast over ATC frequencies by the pilot clearly indicate the Southwest Airlines flight attendant union possesses enough information to pursue a case. Although no regulatory or judicial activities are related to this case, statutory activity and regulations provide a solid basis for the union to pursue any potential workplace discrimination complaints with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Whether the union opts to pursue the case remains to be seen.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION
7
References Bingham, A. (2011, June 23). Flight Attendants' Union May File Charges Over Pilot's Rant. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/flight-attendants-union-file-charges-pilotsrant/story?id=13911994 EEOC.gov. (2011). Age Discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm EEOC.gov. (2011, July 1). Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title29-vol4/xml/CFR-2011-title29-vol4part1604.xml Findlaw. (2011). 18 U.S.C. § 1464: Broadcasting obscene language. Retrieved from http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/71/1464 Justia.com. (2011). 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 Sexual harassment: Title 29: Labor. Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cfr/title29/29-4.1.4.1.5.0.21.11.html Towleroad.com. (2011, June 23). Southwest Flight Attendants May Sue Airline Over Pilot's AntiGay, Sexist Rant. Retrieved from http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/sw.html
1
Southwest Airlines Discrimination Case
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION
2
Southwest Airlines Discrimination Case Recently, a Southwest Airlines discrimination issue surfaced resulting from comments expressed by a Southwest pilot during a private conversation. The two minute conversation transpired on March 25, 2011 and was inadvertently broadcast over a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control frequency in the Houston, Texas area during a flight from Austin, Texas to San Diego, California. According to the accusations, the comments were perceived as demeaning and derogatory with regard to the Southwest Airlines flight attendant employee group. The intent of this paper is not to determine guilt or malice, but instead to present the facts presented from both sides of the argument. The legal definition of discrimination will be explored as well as opinions and views from several sources familiar with the accusations. Potential legal ramifications resulting from broadcasting non-essential transmissions over a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control frequency will also be presented. Furthermore, statutory, regulatory, and judicial activity with regard to this issue will be explored. The incident stemmed from comments made by an unidentified Southwest Airlines pilot who filled a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control frequency with a two minute open microphone rant of potential discriminatory swearing and anti-gay slurs. Included were complaints regarding the lack of attractive flight attendants available for potential dating. In addition, the pilot stated the Southwest Airlines flight attendant workforce in general was a collection of gays, grannies, and „grandes‟, referencing overweight, older women. The two major players in this case are the Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants Union and Southwest Airlines management. In response to the allegations, and in conjunction with issuing an official apology, Southwest Airlines suspended the pilot without pay. The airline
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION permitted the pilot to return to work after completing diversity training. The airline considered the incident as an isolated case and considered the conversation as „private'. The Southwest Airlines flight Attendants Union have considered filing a federal workplace discrimination complaint with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity
3
Commission based upon the statements made by the pilot. Despite an official apology offered by Southwest Airlines management, the union believes the airlines response and apology falls short of expectations. The union is “calling on Southwest Airlines to address this problem throughout our company, not as an isolated incident, but as a mandate that our workplace will be free from discrimination of all forms as a condition of continued employment” (Bingham). Despite the position of the union, Southwest Airlines management believes the diversity training and the public apology was an appropriate response to the incident.
Two possible actions must be considered to determine whether this incident involves any statutory activity. First, did the pilot violate any statutory laws by transmitting obscene, indecent, or profane language over ATC frequencies? Second, did the pilot provide a solid basis for a workplace discrimination complaint as expressed by the flight attendant union; both possibilities appear plausible based on the information provided?
Regarding the transmission made by the pilot via ATC frequencies, United States Code Title 18, paragraph 1464, provides insight regarding the broadcasting of obscene language. According to the code, “Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title [$10,000] or imprisoned not more than two years, or both” (Findlaw, 2011). Despite this code, the Federal Aviation Administration does not appear to be interested in pursuing legal action against the pilot. According to the Federal
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION Aviation Administration, "the incident occurred during a phase of flight in which personal conversations are permitted in the cockpit. Nevertheless, the Federal Aviation Administration expects a higher level of professionalism from flight crews, regardless of the circumstances" (Bingham). Based on the statement provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, further disciplinary actions on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration appears to be highly unlikely. The potential of establishing guilt based on a workplace discrimination complaint filed by the flight attendants union appears to be viable. Part 1604 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides guidelines on discrimination based on sex. Specifically, Title 29, Part 1604, Section 1604.11 further defines discrimination as conduct which, “has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment” (EEOC.gov). Clearly the comments expressed by the pilot fit this definition established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In addition, the comments expressed by the pilot when referencing certain flight attendants as „grannies and grandes‟, which refers to the women as overweight and old, fits the guidelines of harassment which can include, “offensive remarks about a person's age. Although
4
the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment” (EEOC.gov, 2011). Obviously the flight attendants union has a valid complaint should the decision to pursue the action be implemented. No regulatory activity appears to exist which may directly influence the actions or outcome of this incident. Although Title 29, Part 1604, Section 1604.11 applies to the actions and statements of the pilot, Appendix A of paragraph 1604.11 rescinds the designation.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION “§1604.11(c) of the Guidelines on Sexual Harassment, which set forth the standard of employer liability for harassment by supervisors. That section is no longer valid” (Justia.com, 2011). As written, paragraph 1604.11(c) never applied to this case and is currently designated in Title 29, part 1604, as „reserved‟. No evidence exists that supports whether the flight attendants union pursued the workplace discrimination complaint with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity
5
Commission. As a result, to date no judicial activity related to the issue has occurred. The union expressed a possibility regarding the pursuit of the complaint, but insisted the union‟s main goal was to establish guidelines within the airline to educate employees on workplace diversity and understanding, and not to necessarily pursue the legal action. Said Thom McDaniel Pres. of TWU Local 556 Representing Southwest Flight Attendants:"We are calling on Southwest Airlines to address this problem throughout our company, not as an isolated incident, but as a mandate that our workplace will be free from discrimination of all forms as a condition of continued employment. We have instructed our attorneys today to investigate the possibility of filing an EEOC charge with the federal government. We hope not to have to go that route, and instead, we are counting on Southwest Airlines to remedy this injustice. Bigotry in the workplace is bad business and unacceptable behavior on the ground and at 30,000 feet." (Towleroad.com) Considering to date no additional information regarding a workplace discrimination complaint related to this issue and filed by the Southwest flight attendants union can be located, an assumption can be made that the union accepted the corrective actions, apologies, and pilot diversity training provided by Southwest Airlines in response to this unfortunate incident.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION
6
The legal system provides valid definitions regarding workplace discrimination and sexual harassment. The content of the statements broadcast over ATC frequencies by the pilot clearly indicate the Southwest Airlines flight attendant union possesses enough information to pursue a case. Although no regulatory or judicial activities are related to this case, statutory activity and regulations provide a solid basis for the union to pursue any potential workplace discrimination complaints with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Whether the union opts to pursue the case remains to be seen.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES DISCRIMINATION
7
References Bingham, A. (2011, June 23). Flight Attendants' Union May File Charges Over Pilot's Rant. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/flight-attendants-union-file-charges-pilotsrant/story?id=13911994 EEOC.gov. (2011). Age Discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm EEOC.gov. (2011, July 1). Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title29-vol4/xml/CFR-2011-title29-vol4part1604.xml Findlaw. (2011). 18 U.S.C. § 1464: Broadcasting obscene language. Retrieved from http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/71/1464 Justia.com. (2011). 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 Sexual harassment: Title 29: Labor. Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cfr/title29/29-4.1.4.1.5.0.21.11.html Towleroad.com. (2011, June 23). Southwest Flight Attendants May Sue Airline Over Pilot's AntiGay, Sexist Rant. Retrieved from http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/sw.html
