Posted on 06/23/2002 8:57:39 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Sondra Solovay weighs just over 21 stones [294 lb]. She could be in better shape. But last week there was no time to worry about a distinct lack of pace as she attempted a headlong dash across an airport in southern California.
Miss Solovay was late for her Southwest Airlines flight home to Oakland, near San Francisco. The Ivy-League educated lawyer, who had just addressed a civil rights conference, needed to get to her office for an important meeting with a client later that day.
When she reached the airline's ticket desk she was out of breath, on time and rather proud of the achievement. Then, to her astonishment, Miss Solovay discovered that size mattered after all.
Two days earlier, Southwest Airlines had happily flown her to California. Now she was told that because she was so "large", she could not travel unless she bought a second seat. Otherwise she would "encroach on the space" of the passenger next to her.
The language was politically correct but the message was clear: Miss Solovay might be able to reach surprising speeds when negotiating an airport concourse, but she was still too fat to be treated as an ordinary passenger.
Outraged and desperate, Miss Solovay produced money for two seats. But two places together could not be found on the flight, nor on subsequent ones that day. She would have to wait for her seats.
Miss Solovay might be bulky of body, but she possesses a sharp and trained lawyer's mind. As she sat waiting at the airport (taking up only a single seat), she decided that it was time for the fat to fight back.
She is now among a group of American lawyers considering a class-action lawsuit against airlines - not just Southwest - for what they believe to be unconstitutional discrimination against the overweight. Southwest Airlines may live to regret the day they tried to keep her off their aircraft.
"It's an issue of fundamental civil rights when people are prevented from travelling because of their personal attributes," Miss Solovay said. "There needs to be an effective legal challenge to this kind of policy. The time has come to fight back on this, and on other fronts."
Across the United States, large Americans are responding to the call. One of Miss Solovay's clients could be another Californian, Steve McAllister. Mr McAllister, a former college football player, is 6ft 2in tall and weighs 25 stones [350 lb].
Once he was a fearsome sight for opponents on the playing fields of California. As his athletic bulk has turned to flab, he is now seen as a danger only to fellow-users of public transport.
When the software executive tried to buy an extra ticket from Southwest for a short flight from Sacramento airport ten days ago, he was told that he was a "safety hazard" to other passengers.
This week the airline will impose a nationwide policy requiring all fat people on all flights to pay for two seats. The policy was applied to Mr McAllister in advance. Although Southwest eventually relented, he is in no doubt that next time he will be charged double. In a spirited show of defiance, Mr McAllister inquired whether he would gain air miles for his second ticket. The answer was no. Like Miss Solovay, he believes it is time for the fat to fight back.
"Size is a phobia here in the States," he said. "Some employers have told me I would not be good executive material because of my size. We are considered to be dumber, sloppier, messier. People think, if you can't even get your weight down to an acceptable level, how can you expect to be able to run a business? Well, I've managed to do pretty well. These people are morons."
Perhaps because of his former status as a college football hero, Mr McAllister's experience made headlines across America. With tongues firmly in cheeks, commentators talked earnestly about "spatial profiling". Others opted for cruder references to "jumbo jet-setters". The perennial question is back on everyone's lips: are fat people to blame for their condition?
Even President Bush has joined the fray. Mr Bush no longer drinks alcohol and goes jogging almost every day. He shows no hint of flab. Launching a national fitness campaign and urging the 61 per cent of Americans who suffer from obesity to take more exercise, Mr Bush said last week: "If you're interested in improving America, you can do so by taking care of your own body."
The sense that the problems of the obese are self-inflicted is pervasive. Legislators in many states are now taking action which may nip the fat fightback in the bud. Foods blamed for American obesity are being targeted remorselessly. Californian senators are proposing taxes on sweet fizzy drinks; schools are being instructed to stop serving pizza; lawyers are assessing the prospects for class-action lawsuits against fast-food chains such as McDonald's and Burger King.
David Satcher, America's Surgeon-General, whose anti-smoking warnings appear on cigarette packets, announced a "call to action" to reduce obesity last December. Restaurants are being encouraged to slim down their portions - an approach which critics say retraces the first steps of the long war against tobacco.
The problems of those who, like Miss Solovay and Mr McAllister, are already overweight, are either ignored or laughed at. Alleged diets of fast food washed down with Coca-Cola and lazy days spent on the sofa in front of the television inspire little sympathy. The way of life is seen as unprepossessing, self-indulgent and self-inflicted. No one is therefore overly surprised to hear that fat people are discriminated against at work, more likely to lose a custody battle over a child, and less likely to be selected as jurors.
The obese are also likely to earn less: according to one study published by a medical journal last year, fat women earn on average $6,710 (£4,503) less than their slimmer peers, even after allowing for educational and other factors.
In such a hostile environment, the fat fightback will not be easy. It is beginning with the F-word itself. A string of lobby groups are being set up on behalf of men and women who are proud to be "fat". Short and succinct, the word is preferable to "overweight", "oversize" or even plain "obese", according to Allen Steadman, the director of the International Size Acceptance Association: "Fat is what it is, so why call it anything else?"
Representatives of the airline industry have been summoned to an annual convention of fat people in August. There they will be asked to explain why special seating rows cannot be fitted for larger passengers. Hair salons and medical offices are being urged to provide gowns big enough for fat people. "One size definitely does not fit all," said one campaigner.
The list of fat action areas is being constantly extended. Car manufacturers are being pressed to supply seat-belt extenders as a matter of course to their larger customers - at present they are only required by law to install belts suitable for people up to 215lb (15.3 stones) in weight.
Then there are the loos. "Sometimes toilets are not fortified enough," said Mr Steadman. "Sometimes they hang off the wall, and they have been known to break."
Once the F-word has been fully re-claimed, and the state legislatures reformed, the biggest battle will begin. Fat people are preparing to contest the view that they are responsible for their own condition.
Miss Solovay is a vegetarian who insists that she eats carefully and eschews fizzy drinks. "I've been oversize since I was 11," she said. "I haven't eaten meat since then. I don't eat fries or fast food - in fact my eating is better than an average American. And it's important to exercise. You can be fat and be fit."
Mr McAllister works more than 60 hours a week, avoids red meat and says he is on a low calory diet. "My blood pressure and cholesterol levels are fine, I pay attention to what I eat and I certainly haven't got this way from sitting on my backside drinking beer. I am fitter than many people who are thin," he said.
Maryanne Bodolay, 46, the administrator of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, weighs 25 stones. She said: "I'm a big girl because I am genetically programmed to be so - and, I believe, because I started dieting when I was young. It's the yo-yo syndrome: you lose weight, then you put more on. My sister weighs 125lb [8st 13lb], and she can eat me under the table."
There is no evidence, say some researchers, that fat people really do eat more than others - and ample evidence that dieting rarely works in the long term. "Research shows that people who diet do lose weight, but 95 per cent regain it over a five-year period," said Joanne Ikeda, the co-director of the Centre for Weight and Health at the Berkeley campus of the University of California.
Fat people know that they face a long campaign to persuade their fellow Americans to regard them differently. Fat will never be the new black. However, Miss Solovay insisted: "Some day this will be seen for what it is: the next stage in the struggle for civil rights."
The airlines will just start weighing passengers and charge by the pound, and have an aircraft seat at check-in to see how well they fit.
"sharp and trained lawyers mind"
Could we add devious to the characterizations of lawyers?????
Now, the intersting part - her and her fat husband got seat where they could "sit together", with an empty seat between them (since apparently, each takes up a seat and a half. Some unlucky (or lucky*, depending on how you look at it) was bumped, and offered some form of compensation by the airline, for the convenience of that fat whiner. And she has the nerve to complain about discrimination?????
This woman (I don't remember if the woman in the article is the same one) cost the airline extra money (compensating the bumped passenger somehow), inconveniences a passenger who, will now perhaps associate that airline with bad service, etc... But, it's all about her... That woman, for some reason, really pissed me off...
*Lucky, in that they didn't have to be there, between those two, during the in-flight meal...
Fair is fair. If they have to pay for two seats, they should get double the miles.
Who the hell are you to call anyone a "bastard"? Kiss my ass promptly, please.
Conceptually, I agree with you. However, what is going to kill Southwest at this point is their lack of a uniform standard.
In discrimination lawsuits, the plaintiff is required to prove that they did not discriminate. When a member of a "protected class" (i.e. a minority) is charged double and sues, the fact that Southwest does not have a consistent policy is going to cost them a bundle IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.