So, did this guy just kill his career?

Well, I didn't read this thread to the end, but I think I get the jist from the first 3 pages.

I am inclined to empathize 100% with the pilot quoted in the OP, and I often imagine myself doing the same thing if I were as glib and sharp tongued as he seems. In addition, I agree than TSA exists solely as a CYA agency for the powers that be, as someone posted earlier. However, there are several points that I much consider, and by which i must measure my initial reaction to the situation:

First, I consult the Fourth Amendment. As far as I can tell, like most amendments, it is fairly vague, and open to interpretation.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Click to expand...
Whether or not body scanning constitutes unreasonable is up to the courts, I suppose, and cannot be determined by peoples' emotions and reactions.

Second, as someone mentioned earlier in this discussion, searches of this type are a consequence of a voluntary choice made by the individual, and are not imposed against their will.

So that being said, I do still see this whole ordeal as an erosion of personal liberties, but still, possibly, within the bounds we have set for our government.
 
Ddayle said:
One part of the problem is the corruption of LEO with the idea that LEO have the right to commit the felony they euphemistically call the "silent blue code" Leo seems to have forgotten that to conceal suppress or alter evidence of a possible crime is in most cases a felony. the Law provides no exception just because you wear a uniform. I see the "silent blue code" as the MOST disrespectful thing a person can to to the uniform and badge of LEO. LEO GET a clue , Even staunch law abiding Law and order supporters (like me) are disgusted by the lack of respect to the badge that i see daily from LEO. Sadly it seems I have far more respect for the badge & law & order that the MAJORITY (YES, majority and I CAN back up that statement with facts) of LEO. DaveR
Click to expand...


TSA employees are NOT Law Enforcement Officers.
 
jasc15 said:
Well, I didn't read this thread to the end, but I think I get the jist from the first 3 pages.

I am inclined to empathize 100% with the pilot quoted in the OP, and I often imagine myself doing the same thing if I were as glib and sharp tongued as he seems. In addition, I agree than TSA exists solely as a CYA agency for the powers that be, as someone posted earlier. However, there are several points that I much consider, and by which i must measure my initial reaction to the situation:

First, I consult the Fourth Amendment. As far as I can tell, like most amendments, it is fairly vague, and open to interpretation.

Whether or not body scanning constitutes unreasonable is up to the courts, I suppose, and cannot be determined by peoples' emotions and reactions.

Second, as someone mentioned earlier in this discussion, searches of this type are a consequence of a voluntary choice made by the individual, and are not imposed against their will.

So that being said, I do still see this whole ordeal as an erosion of personal liberties, but still, possibly, within the bounds we have set for our government.
Click to expand...

As far as glib and sharp tongued, the guy talked himself out of a job. He still has his pride and integrity though. That might get him a couple of free beers in the terminal lounge, but probably not.

I think where they get us is that it is not a "constitutional right" to fly in an airplane. You either go along with the policies, or you find a different way to travel. However, remember when people were getting stranded in airplanes on the tarmac for hours on end? They ended up getting redress. The reason is that they were not making a scene at the gate, they were contacting legislators. That is where we should be directing our attention, not at the TSA agents.
 
From what I understand the choices are :
a) ogling my undressed body from an unseen TSA agent
b) public fondling of my breasts by a same-sex TSA agent
c) staying away from airports with TSA agents
 
Maxmosbey said:
As far as glib and sharp tongued, the guy talked himself out of a job. He still has his pride and integrity though. That might get him a couple of free beers in the terminal lounge, but probably not.

I think where they get us is that it is not a "constitutional right" to fly in an airplane. You either go along with the policies, or you find a different way to travel. However, remember when people were getting stranded in airplanes on the tarmac for hours on end? They ended up getting redress. The reason is that they were not making a scene at the gate, they were contacting legislators. That is where we should be directing our attention, not at the TSA agents.
Click to expand...

I think where the diffrence might come in that this guy was not trying to travel he was trying to make a living. He spent a HUGE amount of money to gain the qualifications to fly an airplane and then he was denied the right to the persuit of happyness (which could be argued that making a living in his chosen and trained for profession is the persuit of happyness). When he trained for his job there was no requirement that he be strip seached to do his job.

By reporting and being denied by the TSA access to his job without being invasely searched may have been a tatic to be covered by the union contract (I'm only guessing) and backed up by the union. He also can probally argue that the search amounts to workplace sexual harrasment and one thing I've leanded about sexual harrasment in all the corprate training I've gotten over the years is that it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Having a Pilot do this at the gate is different then having a passenger do this at the gate. Being denied access to his job without submitting to what could be construid as sexual harrasment is a whole diffrent game then a passenger's right or lack of right to transportation by airplane.
 
Maxmosbey said:
I think where they get us is that it is not a "constitutional right" to fly in an airplane. You either go along with the policies, or you find a different way to travel.
Click to expand...

Since there doesn't seem to be a "constitutional right" to travel be
any specific means, what is stopping "them" from putting unreasonable
useless restrictions on every means of travel? After all, there isn't
any "constitutional right" to fly, or take the train, or drive, or ...
 
Missa said:
I think where the diffrence might come in that this guy was not trying to travel he was trying to make a living. He spent a HUGE amount of money to gain the qualifications to fly an airplane and then he was denied the right to the persuit of happyness (which could be argued that making a living in his chosen and trained for profession is the persuit of happyness). When he trained for his job there was no requirement that he be strip seached to do his job.

By reporting and being denied by the TSA access to his job without being invasely searched may have been a tatic to be covered by the union contract (I'm only guessing) and backed up by the union. He also can probally argue that the search amounts to workplace sexual harrasment and one thing I've leanded about sexual harrasment in all the corprate training I've gotten over the years is that it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Having a Pilot do this at the gate is different then having a passenger do this at the gate. Being denied access to his job without submitting to what could be construid as sexual harrasment is a whole diffrent game then a passenger's right or lack of right to transportation by airplane.
Click to expand...
I agree completely with your sentiments. I agree that the TSA policies and procedures are stupid and silly. I just think this pilot picked a bad place and a bad time to make his stand. He knew full well what was at stake.
 
Bob Noel said:
Since there doesn't seem to be a "constitutional right" to travel be
any specific means, what is stopping "them" from putting unreasonable
useless restrictions on every means of travel? After all, there isn't
any "constitutional right" to fly, or take the train, or drive, or ...
Click to expand...

Textually speaking, there's no "constitutional right" to travel at all...just sayin'
 
Bob Noel said:
Since there doesn't seem to be a "constitutional right" to travel be
any specific means, what is stopping "them" from putting unreasonable
useless restrictions on every means of travel? After all, there isn't
any "constitutional right" to fly, or take the train, or drive, or ...
Click to expand...
There is nothing to stop them. But my question is this. Why is the government putting all of these policies and procedures in place? What are they trying to accomplish? Is it their ultimate goal to make air travel as difficult as possible for both passengers and pilots? If so, why?
 
Maxmosbey said:
I agree completely with your sentiments. I agree that the TSA policies and procedures are stupid and silly. I just think this pilot picked a bad place and a bad time to make his stand. He knew full well what was at stake.
Click to expand...

Out of curosity, where would be a good place/good time to make this stand?

According to what I've been able to read on the topic, this was the first time since the installation of the machines that he has been asked to submit to them. He seemed to have gone in knowing that whenever he was going to be asked, he was going to refuse.

I don't think until he was actually denied access to his job by being asked to submit to sexual harrasment in order to do his job would he actually be able to file a suit about it, which I think was clearly his intent. One way to check and ballance the law makers is in court. To get it to court he has to be actually denied access to do his job for failing to submit to sexual harrasment, not therotically denied access to his job. (The Lawyers on the board can correct me)
 
Last edited:
Missa said:
Out of curosity, where would be a good place/good time to make this stand?

According to what I've been able to read on the topic, this was the first time since the installation of the machines that he has been asked to submit to them. He seemed to have gone in knowing that whenever he was going to be asked, he was going to refuse.

I don't think until he was actually denied access to his job by being asked to submit to sexual harrasment in order to do his job would he actually be able to file a suit about it, which I think was clearly his intent. One way to check and ballance the law makers is in court. To get it to court he has to be actually denied access to do his job for failing to submit to sexual harrasment, not therotically denied access to his job. (The Lawyers on the board can correct me)
Click to expand...

First of all, I have not been subjected to unreasonable search or asked to do anything that is against my personal beliefs in order to board an airplane. But if I were, I would contact my representative in congress, Leonard Boswell. He is on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Aviation. I would express my dissatisfaction. Not only would I contact him, I would hound him about it. That is what I would do. Not near as dramatic as ****ing off the agent at the gate, but at least Boswell is someone who can do something about it.
 
Missa said:
Out of curosity, where would be a good place/good time to make this stand?

According to what I've been able to read on the topic, this was the first time since the installation of the machines that he has been asked to submit to them. He seemed to have gone in knowing that whenever he was going to be asked, he was going to refuse.

I don't think until he was actually denied access to his job by being asked to submit to sexual harrasment in order to do his job would he actually be able to file a suit about it, which I think was clearly his intent. One way to check and ballance the law makers is in court. To get it to court he has to be actually denied access to do his job for failing to submit to sexual harrasment, not therotically denied access to his job. (The Lawyers on the board can correct me)
Click to expand...

It could be that is what he plans to do. Maybe the ACLU will take on his case.
 
Missa said:
Out of curosity, where would be a good place/good time to make this stand?

According to what I've been able to read on the topic, this was the first time since the installation of the machines that he has been asked to submit to them. He seemed to have gone in knowing that whenever he was going to be asked, he was going to refuse.

I don't think until he was actually denied access to his job by being asked to submit to sexual harrasment in order to do his job would he actually be able to file a suit about it, which I think was clearly his intent. One way to check and ballance the law makers is in court. To get it to court he has to be actually denied access to do his job for failing to submit to sexual harrasment, not therotically denied access to his job. (The Lawyers on the board can correct me)
Click to expand...
I think you have hit the nail on the head. It seems like sexual harrassment to me, too. And in the workplace, that is not allowed. It ought not to be allowed anywhere, but that is another discussion.
 
AuntPeggy said:
I think you have hit the nail on the head. It seems like sexual harrassment to me, too. And in the workplace, that is not allowed. It ought not to be allowed anywhere, but that is another discussion.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think he would have a hard time proving sexual harassment unless a screener made some kind of off-color comment. I tend to agree with Max. If you are unhappy about it contact your representatives. They probably aren't that happy about it too since I'll bet they travel a lot by airplane. But then I'm not generally sympathetic to people who pull "look at me" stunts.
 
Maxmosbey said:
First of all, I have not been subjected to unreasonable search or asked to do anything that is against my personal beliefs in order to board an airplane. But if I were, I would contact my representative in congress, Leonard Boswell. He is on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Aviation. I would express my dissatisfaction. Not only would I contact him, I would hound him about it. That is what I would do. Not near as dramatic as ****ing off the agent at the gate, but at least Boswell is someone who can do something about it.
Click to expand...

So refusing the seach in a calm manor and offering to leave the airport is dramadicly ****ing off the agent at the gate?

Wow... the gate agents must be really sensitive.
 
Everskyward said:
I disagree. I think he would have a hard time proving sexual harassment unless a screener made some kind of off-color comment. I tend to agree with Max. If you are unhappy about it contact your representatives. They probably aren't that happy about it too since I'll bet they travel a lot by airplane. But then I'm not generally sympathetic to people who pull "look at me" stunts.
Click to expand...

So being required to show your body or be touched and prodded (aka fondled) in sensitive areas is not workplace sexual harrasment??? From eveything I have seen is "training" he's got a really good case.
 
Missa said:
So being required to show your body or be touched and prodded in sensitive areas is not workplace sexual harrasment??? From eveything I have seen is "training" he's got a really good case.
Click to expand...
It you're going to say that being frisked is sexual harassment then police departments have a problem. I've had the pat down a couple times (not because I refused the scan, I was pulled out of line randomly) and it was almost like they were afraid to touch. I'm not sure how they could have found anything. I agree that the whole thing is pretty useless but calling it sexual harassment is incorrect IMHO. That should be reserved for real sexual harassment or it dilutes the meaning.
 
Last edited:
Missa said:
So refusing the seach in a calm manor and offering to leave the airport is dramadicly ****ing off the agent at the gate?

Wow... the gate agents must be really sensitive.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that they agent at the gate can't change it. He is the wrong person if you want to get something changed.
 
Maxmosbey said:
I'm saying that they agent at the gate can't change it. He is the wrong person if you want to get something changed.
Click to expand...

No and from the what I read about the exchange the pilot didn't expect the TSA agent manning the security check point (not the gate agent) to do anything other then what happened. He did not get belligerent nor demand access. He accepted the results and offered to leave. And I contend that he needed to have this exchange and be denied access to be able to have actual grounds for a court case which is one avenue that we as citizens have to change law.

Are you saying that he didn't need to have actual damages to file a court case?
 
Everskyward said:
It you're going to say that being frisked is sexual harassment then police departments have a problem. I've had the pat down a couple times (not because I refused the scan, I was pulled out of line randomly) and it was almost like they were afraid to touch. I'm not sure how they could have found anything. I agree that the whole thing is pretty useless but calling it sexual harassment is incorrect IMHO. That should be reserved for real sexual harassment or it dilutes the meaning.
Click to expand...

Could be construed as sexual harrasment depending on how it is done. Only from what I have read, the frisking done due to refusal to be virtually strip searched is more intensive then previous airport pat downs.

Sexual harrisment is always in the eye of the harrasee (not that I agree with that). When he aquired his training and job being manhandled or exposed to radiation in order to be virtually stipped naked was not a requirment. Now he is given a choice, submit to something that makes you uncomfortable or thow all the $$ you spent on training for your job out the window and start over. => The definition of workplace sexual harrasment.
 
JeffDG said:
Textually speaking, there's no "constitutional right" to travel at all...just sayin'
Click to expand...

IANAL - but I believe I understand what you are saying.

Do we not have a right to travel codified somewhere (in the CFR?)?
If true, then we can strike "constitutional" and continue with
the discussion.
 
Missa said:
I contend that he needed to have this exchange and be denied access to be able to have actual grounds for a court case which is one avenue that we as citizens have to change law.

Are you saying that he didn't need to have actual damages to file a court case?
Click to expand...
I am not arguing with you at all. If that was his goal, then he was a clever fellow. We will have to see if his approach changes anything. Perhaps it will. In the mean time, if you are that moved by the issue, you should contact someone in the legislature, preferably someone on the Transportation Committee, and let them know how unhappy you are.
 
Maxmosbey said:
I am not arguing with you at all. If that was his goal, then he was a clever fellow. We will have to see if his approach changes anything. Perhaps it will. In the mean time, if you are that moved by the issue, you should contact someone in the legislature, preferably someone on the Transportation Committee, and let them know how unhappy you are.
Click to expand...

I agree and I should. Currently, I just will drive or take my own (club) plane.

But as far as the pilot in question is concerned, I do not think the action he took was out of line. It seems his intent was to file a suit as a method to change the law and stake his career on it. Someone needed to do it and I respect him for it. I hope he wins.
 
steingar said:
There's lots of guys who'd like to look at Janet Napolitano naked. There's guys who like to look at all kinds of stuff.
Click to expand...
I'll bet that if Napolitano's security scanner images showed up on the internet, there'd be some hasty changes WRT full body imaging at airports.
 
Missa said:
Sexual harrisment is always in the eye of the harrasee (not that I agree with that). When he aquired his training and job being manhandled or exposed to radiation in order to be virtually stipped naked was not a requirment. Now he is given a choice, submit to something that makes you uncomfortable or thow all the $$ you spent on training for your job out the window and start over. => The definition of workplace sexual harrasment.
Click to expand...
Not really. This is the definition of workplace sexual harrasment.

Courts and employers generally use the definition of sexual harassment contained in the guidelines of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This language has also formed the basis for most state laws prohibiting sexual harassment. The guidelines state:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when

  1. submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
  2. submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
  3. such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])
Click to expand...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+harrasment

There needs to be some intent on the part of the harasser and the physical contact needs to be of a sexual nature. While I wholeheartedly agree that frisking opens up the possibility for sexual harassment it doesn't follow in all or even most cases.
 
gismo said:
I'll bet that if Napolitano's security scanner images showed up on the internet, there'd be some hasty changes WRT full body imaging at airports.
Click to expand...

And there would be a spike in keyboard orders, for all those guys who threw up on them after viewing said images.

Still, in all seriousness I'll bet it's only a matter of time before some famous person has their naked backscatter photo posted on the web somewhere. While the TSA will fall over itself being apologetic and sacking anyone involved, such an event could give it a sufficiently black eye to dampen enthusiasm for the things.
 
Last edited:
Back to the title of the thread, I wonder how this will affect his career? I would guess that ultimately it depends on how his court case goes. I bet that it takes at least five years. In the mean time, what happens to him?

Also, on one has answered my question. Why is the government putting all of these policies and procedures in place? What are they trying to accomplish? Is it their ultimate goal to make air travel as difficult as possible for both passengers and pilots? If so, why?
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
Not really. This is the definition of workplace sexual harrasment.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+harrasment
Quote:
Courts and employers generally use the definition of sexual harassment contained in the guidelines of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This language has also formed the basis for most state laws prohibiting sexual harassment. The guidelines state:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when
  1. submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
  2. submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
  3. such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])

There needs to be some intent on the part of the harasser and the physical contact needs to be of a sexual nature. While I wholeheartedly agree that frisking opens up the possibility for sexual harassment it doesn't follow in all or even most cases.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing a key word in there Emphasis above is mine=> "purpose or effect" even if not on purpose so long as that is the effect then it is considered sexual harrasment.

So long as the "other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" (like requesting to be seen naked or being touched in sensitive areas) has the "effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment." Then it is workplace sexual harrasment.
 
Missa said:
You seem to be missing a key word in there Emphasis above is mine=> "purpose or effect" even if not on purpose so long as that is the effect then it is considered sexual harrasment.

So long as the "other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" (like requesting to be seen naked or being touched in sensitive areas) has the "effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment." Then it is workplace sexual harrasment.
Click to expand...
If that was the case you could claim sexual harassment for any reason as long as you were able to justify it in your own head.
 
steingar said:
There's lots of guys who'd like to look at Janet Napolitano naked. There's guys who like to look at all kinds of stuff.
Click to expand...

Probably the same ones that wanted to look at Janet Reno nekkid.

Would _____ hit it? :D

Everskyward said:
It you're going to say that being frisked is sexual harassment then police departments have a problem. I've had the pat down a couple times (not because I refused the scan, I was pulled out of line randomly) and it was almost like they were afraid to touch. I'm not sure how they could have found anything. I agree that the whole thing is pretty useless but calling it sexual harassment is incorrect IMHO. That should be reserved for real sexual harassment or it dilutes the meaning.
Click to expand...

Mari, it is my understanding that the "new" TSA procedures will require touching of the genitals for any pat-down.
 
wsuffa said:
Mari, it is my understanding that the "new" TSA procedures will require touching of the genitals for any pat-down.
Click to expand...
Like we say in the spin zone, "citation needed"...
 
wsuffa said:
Probably the same ones that wanted to look at Janet Reno nekkid.

Would _____ hit it? :D



Mari, it is my understanding that the "new" TSA procedures will require touching of the genitals for any pat-down.
Click to expand...

Everskyward said:
Like we say in the spin zone, "citation needed"...
Click to expand...

Maybe I'll decline the virtual strip search machine at SEA when it goes on-line and give you a first hand report. Should have done that at LIH in August. I'd give my opinion of the TSA, but this is a family friendly board.
 
Bob Noel said:
Since there doesn't seem to be a "constitutional right" to travel be
any specific means, what is stopping "them" from putting unreasonable
useless restrictions on every means of travel? After all, there isn't
any "constitutional right" to fly, or take the train, or drive, or ...
Click to expand...

Some people think that a driver's license is an unreasonable, useless restriction. Sure a lot of folks who think a pilot's certificate is. I personally think a 3rd class medical is :incazzato: :ihih:

Point is, there are all kinds of restrictions on travel.
 
Missa said:
That was the jist of the sexual harassment awareness training that I have gotten.
Click to expand...
That's pretty screwed up then since anyone could claim harassment and destroy someone's career with a frivolous charge. I'm sure there is some mediation involved. I'll admit that I've never been through sexual harassment training other than reading in the employee manual that it isn't tolerated. But I guess I haven't worked at a big enough company where they do that.

That said, in thinking about it, the guy doesn't work for the TSA so it isn't really workplace sexual harassment. Who is he going to bring the claim against?

I'm not saying that I approve of what the TSA is doing. I'm just saying that if you are going to play the sexual harassment card it needs to be for a serious and defensible reason or else it backfires with a lot of cries of wolf. But then I have to admit that my definition is more along the lines of, "you won't get this promotion unless you sleep with me", rather than, "this person gave me a creepy feeling". But then I guess that's a subject for another thread, probably in the SZ.
 
Everskyward said:
If that was the case you could claim sexual harassment for any reason as long as you were able to justify it in your own head.
Click to expand...

Anyone can claim anything at any time, juz like anyone can file a lawsuit for anything at any time.

Having said claim substantiated (or having a lawsuit proceed on the merits) is a whole 'nuther ball game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top