Limbless woman sues Air France

[AsMadAsAHatter]

NEW YORK - A wheelchair-bound woman with no limbs sued Air France <AIRF.PA> for discrimination on Friday, alleging she was kept off a flight by a gate agent who told her a "torso cannot possibly fly on its own." Adele Price, 42, a British citizen, sued the airline in Manhattan federal court seeking unspecified damages.

Price, who was born without limbs because her mother took the drug thalidomide during pregnancy, said in the suit she is able to manipulate a wheelchair and has traveled by air many times.

The suit states that she had bought a ticket in 2000 for travel between Manchester, England and New York. After Price had checked her luggage, she alleged that she was stopped by an Air France agent who told her that "a head, one bottom and a torso cannot possibly fly on its own."

Price said in the suit that Air France let her take another flight to New York but only after she was able to get a companion to go with her. However, Price said she had to pay for the companion's airfare and lodging.

She said the airline also made it difficult for her to return from John F. Kennedy airport to Britain by requiring her to get opinions from four U.S. doctors certifying she was able to fly alone.

A spokeswoman for Air France had no immediate comment. From: www.msnbc.com

If her doctor said she could fly alone, you would think there would be no question about it. It was wrong that they didn't treat her as a person, even though she is disabled. I don't think :think: they found the best way to handle this situation. :shakeno: :thumbsdn:

[BLONDINE]

odd...very odd.... :odd:

I don't know...that is kind of weird..I know I would not want to sit next to her on a plane.."in case of an emergency please refrain from floping onto the person next to you"..what a awkard moment...I fly a lot and I much as I wont to say "that was cruel and not fair to the woman"...I just am not seeing her flopping on me and them me helping her reposition her during a little turbulance every ten mins...

[Archibaldo]

She has a right to sue. Just because a person is handicapped should they not be allowed to fly on a plane. She'll probably win too.

[ShadowTiger]

Ridiculous. That woman deserves the right to an airplane as much as the next person. If she got there in the first place, what's stopping her from flying again? :p Besides, if she says she's flown before, and is clearly an adult, (Thereby ruling out the possibility of just saying that as a false childish alibi.) then what's stopping her? :shrug:

Unless of course the plane doesn't have the necessary ability to support her and her chair, but that's relatively unlikely.

[ZTC]

Air France did this? Nothing but a bunch of dirty bastards that did this to her. :angry:

[Rainman]

How's she going to sign the legal documents?

[AsMadAsAHatter]

How's she going to sign the legal documents?

I bet she ethier has someone sign things for her or she might be able to write with her mouth.

[Destiny]

well..if she was told by her doctor she could fly, then why wont the stupid airline let her fly? Obviously she was capable of getting to the Airport to fly...she should just be able to fly...I think thats outright rude :disgust: (but thats just me)

[AsMadAsAHatter]

well..if she was told by her doctor she could fly, then why wont the stupid airline let her fly? Obviously she was capable of getting to the Airport to fly...she should just be able to fly...I think thats outright rude :disgust: (but thats just me)

No, it's not just you. This is an act of violating someone's rights. If she thought she was incapable of flying alone, then she would probably be the best one to judge her capabilities whether she could fly or not. I don't think she would put herself in any kind of danger like that, she can't afford to by being so disabled. And for that to be backed up by a doctor, there shouldn't have been any question about it. The thing that aggravates me the most is what they said to her, calling her a "torso" and not treating her as an individual. :angry:

[Artex]

Hell, it's bad enough not having any limbs.....then they have to tell 'er she can't get on a plane because of it? Well.....that is rather rude....Though they may have been looking for her best interest?.....of course she don't know what's best for herself..... :sweat:

[AtmaWeapon]

OK I'm seeing that a lot of people don't understand the issue.

When she was originally getting on the flight, she had no doctor's opinion that she could fly. This part of it only came when she wanted to return from the US to Britain.

The airline may have had a right to question her ability to fly alone. Someone with no arms is at greater risk in the event of an emergency, and the airliine would be liable for providing extra assistance if it was requested. They were probably unsure they could meet her needs. If the airline could prove that there was a safety risk for her that they could not fix, then they would have been more justified to deny her flight (although in the interests of customer satisfaction, they should cough up a refund plus a little compensation, perhaps a boat ticket or something).

However, they went about it in entirely the wrong manner. The proper way to handle such a situation is to explain calmly that company policy requires disabled passengers to have some form of doctor's consent and/or a waiver of liability. This indicates to the individual that the airline is worried about their safety (more like worried about lawsuits), and I bet the woman would have accepted this minor inconvenience. Had she put up a protest, the airline could have denied her ticket as a possible unruly passenger and been justified by their policy.

For the woman to win her court case, she would have to prove to the jury she was subject to treatment not due to company policy, but due to a lack of respect for her life. She would also need to prove that the company unjustly made it more difficult for her to fly because of her disability. The humiliating and demeaning language used by the airline staff is quite sufficient to prove the first point. Forcing her to pay airfare for a companion and visit four doctors is enough to prove the airline made it more difficult for her to fly.

The only way the airline could have saved itself after the torso comment would have been to cover the airfare for both her and the companion. I think if they had done that, the woman's case for discrimination would have been weak.

They were jerks, though, and now she's gonna get plenty of compensation for her difficulties. She'll now have plenty of cash to go on first-class trips to wherever she wants, and I bet airlines will be more considerate in the future :)

So in the end I guess they did her a favor. :shrug:

[AsMadAsAHatter]

The airline may have had a right to question her ability to fly alone. Someone with no arms is at greater risk in the event of an emergency, and the airliine would be liable for providing extra assistance if it was requested. They were probably unsure they could meet her needs. If the airline could prove that there was a safety risk for her that they could not fix, then they would have been more justified to deny her flight (although in the interests of customer satisfaction, they should cough up a refund plus a little compensation, perhaps a boat ticket or something).

I definately see where you're coming from Atma. If there was some sort of emergency where all the passengers on the plane needed to evacuate, how would they accomodate a disabled person? If not told so before hand? That is definately true.


For the woman to win her court case, she would have to prove to the jury she was subject to treatment not due to company policy, but due to a lack of respect for her life. She would also need to prove that the company unjustly made it more difficult for her to fly because of her disability. The humiliating and demeaning language used by the airline staff is quite sufficient to prove the first point. Forcing her to pay airfare for a companion and visit four doctors is enough to prove the airline made it more difficult for her to fly.

The only way the airline could have saved itself after the torso comment would have been to cover the airfare for both her and the companion. I think if they had done that, the woman's case for discrimination would have been weak.

They were jerks, though, and now she's gonna get plenty of compensation for her difficulties. She'll now have plenty of cash to go on first-class trips to wherever she wants, and I bet airlines will be more considerate in the future :)

So in the end I guess they did her a favor. :shrug:

That's if ,of course the court decides the incident in her favor. I can see where they would favor her over the airlines because of all of the trouble she went through, but what if they rule the case in favor of the airlines? They were just doing their job, doing what was nessacary for the passenger and everyone else on the airplane. And one person probably said that to her, they could probably argue that the whole airlines isn't to blame for one comment from one employee.

[AtmaWeapon]

They will have a rather hard time convincing the jury that only one person was responsible for making her pay for a companion, and only one person was responsible for not letting her return without the consent of four doctors.

A jury is made of people with hearts and feelings, and a limbless woman who was told "torsos can't fly" will have great sympathy from them. My guess is the airline will settle out of court with her because even if they had a rock-solid case, the jury's sympathy will already lie with the woman.

Ensuring the woman was fit to fly was the airline's job. Ridiculing her, humiliating her, forcing her to buy another ticket, and refusing to let her return home without paying for four doctor recommendations is not the airline's job.

[inori]

And it's fairly well established that a company, in general, has some responsibility for its employees' actions.

[AsMadAsAHatter]

And it's fairly well established that a company, in general, has some responsibility for its employees' actions.

Well, that is true that the company is responsible for their empolyess. But they might you the defense that one person's actions isn't the whole company's too. The woman has been wrongfully hassled, and she probably will get a settlement. Hopefully she'll get enough money where it was worth her time and effort.

[AtmaWeapon]

One McDonald's location served coffee that was way too hot to some grandma, but the entire company had to pay her millions for being an idiot and spilling coffee in her lap.

The "one person doesn't represent the company" defense is a good defense. But if the plaintiff has some quality that makes the jury pity them (very young, elderly, limbless, etc.) then no defense is good enough. Like I said, if all that had happened had been the torso comment, then the airline would have plausible defense and could probably get the case thrown out of court. However, the whole "bring a buddy you stupid torso" and "we're not bringing you back without doctor recommendations" part indicates that there was more than one employee at fault.

One can also assume the woman tried to fight for her rights, and managers and supervisors got involved. One employee making hateful comments is not a case. An employee making hateful comments and supervisors backing him up with company policy is a crime.

[AsMadAsAHatter]

One McDonald's location served coffee that was way too hot to some grandma, but the entire company had to pay her millions for being an idiot and spilling coffee in her lap.

The "one person doesn't represent the company" defense is a good defense. But if the plaintiff has some quality that makes the jury pity them (very young, elderly, limbless, etc.) then no defense is good enough. Like I said, if all that had happened had been the torso comment, then the airline would have plausible defense and could probably get the case thrown out of court. However, the whole "bring a buddy you stupid torso" and "we're not bringing you back without doctor recommendations" part indicates that there was more than one employee at fault.

One can also assume the woman tried to fight for her rights, and managers and supervisors got involved. One employee making hateful comments is not a case. An employee making hateful comments and supervisors backing him up with company policy is a crime.

Wow, how true, how true. They probably won't be able to even nail the company like they should be able to. But the whole case could be really bad for the company if it does surface that the managers and supervisors were tolerating what was happening because most/ all of them might be fired. Or if the woman sues for enough she could make the company go bankrupt. The airlines company *could* go down in flames under the right circumstances. But then they would be getting what they deserve, you can't go treating someone like that, especially since she's disabled and not expect anything to happen. But who knows? Maybe she would have let the comment go, if she was allowed to fly back to Britain without a struggle. :shrug:

[AtmaWeapon]

BTW your sig is really funny in the context of this thread

"no arms to run to" LOL

[linkofzelda1]

One McDonald's location served coffee that was way too hot to some grandma, but the entire company had to pay her millions for being an idiot and spilling coffee in her lap.


Your facts are incorrect. That poor woman had to get skin grafts because of a mutual mistake between the employee and the woman. Regardless of who made the mistake the coffee was way too hot and she had a right to sue.

[AsMadAsAHatter]

BTW your sig is really funny in the context of this thread

"no arms to run to" LOL

HaHaHaHa!! That's funny i didn't even notice that!! :rofl:



Your facts are incorrect. That poor woman had to get skin grafts because of a mutual mistake between the employee and the woman. Regardless of who made the mistake the coffee was way too hot and she had a right to sue.

I don't think the facts were "incorrect". But i do think you offered more about why the woman sued McDonalds. Atma was just using that case as an example for this case about the woman who sued Air France for their derogatory comments and making it a lot more diffcult to return back to britain. But thank you for giving us more details about that case, that's awful that she had to get her skin grafted, how painful. :(