Jet Blue pays damages plus attorneys fees. Jury is out on punitive damages.
Posted on 07/22/2011 10:12:48 AM PDT by markomalley
A Harlem financial consultant wants JetBlue to pay for booting her off a Florida-bound flight after an airline worker accused her of not wearing panties.
Malinda Knowles, 27, claims in a Queens Supreme Court lawsuit that a JetBlue supervisor put a walkie-talkie between her legs to see what she had on under her baggy T-shirt.
"He said, 'I don't want to see your panties or anything but do you have any on?'" Knowles recalled yesterday.
"I didn't want to show him anything. He wanted me to basically show him my crotch. I was completely humiliated. It was vulgar. It was macho. It was rude."
She said fellow passengers on the July 13, 2010, flight to West Palm Beach watched in horror as she was confronted.
The former fashion model said she was wearing a baggy blue T-shirt over a pair of dark denim short-shorts she had tossed on after waking up at 4 a.m.
Knowles said she was escorted off the plane at LaGuardia Airport.
She was taken to a hangar, where she lifted up her T-shirt to prove she met the dress code.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
That ain't no "former fashion model."
I remember a time when the obscene phone calls were a little less “up close and personal”.
That never works.
Phones have cameras, not walkie-talkies.
Dumbass.
I have read the article, and it appears she has a beef. I have seen her picture, however, and she is guilty on principle.
Forgive me, but where is it a law that you have to wear underwear? And I would think the TSA would appreciate one less pair that could contain explosives!
A fashion model?!! In what, transvestites weekly? Or as Austin Powers might say, “That’s a Man, Baby!”
She doesn’t look much like a financial consultant, either, but I think the airline was out of line.
Wow! That’s one ugly man.
That's cold.
Jet Blue pays damages plus attorneys fees. Jury is out on punitive damages.
TSA rules make the agents crotchety!
Knowles, a financial consultant, claims she was thrown off a JetBlue flight because the pilot suspected she wasn't dressed properly.
no panties=suicide belt?
Didn’t I just hear that the made an old lady take off her diaper? Guess they could not make up their minds: underwear or no under wear?
Shouldn’t the pat down have revealed that she had on shorts? I am sooooo confused.
I would guess, just as a matter of irony, that she is a former underwear model at a gentleman's club...
Why didn’t she just answwer the question?
“He said, ‘I don’t want to see your panties or anything but do you have any on?’” Knowles recalled yesterday.
“I didn’t want to show him anything. He wanted me to basically show him my crotch.”
She contradicts herself. He did not want her to show. He asked a question, and he needed an answer. Left out of the article was whether or not she gave him a direct and truthful answer.
I hope he washed that walkie talkie before he but it up to his face. I expect the TSA will offer him a supervisors job after this.
Why would they be checking if she is wearing underwear? What made them think she wasn't? Does it make any sense that the guy would stick a walkie-talking up her shirt?
Here is her OWN statement: ""He said, 'I don't want to see your panties or anything but do you have any on?'" Knowles recalled yesterday."
Let's take her at her word. He said he did NOT WANT TO SEE. He just wanted her to answer the question. Note she doesn't say she answered his question.
So my speculation is that she refused to answer the question.
And at the start of her story, she made it sound like he was asking her to lift a dress and show off her panties on the plane. But then we learn she was wearing shorts. A lot of people tuck their shirts into their shorts, so we all see shorts all the time. Why was she embarassed to show him she was wearing shorts? Especially if she was a fashion model -- she hardly would have a fear of someone seeing her legs, and they were HER shorts which she chose to wear in public.
So they took her off the plane to a private location, she shows she has shorts on, but the pilot doesn't want her on the plane.
OK, if the pilot is involved, there has to be more to the story. This isn't just some weird steward getting his kicks. She must have raised some sort of concern that brought the pilot into the mix.
Sheer speculation, but the story would "make sense" if this woman comes on board with a shirt down to her knees, some passengers start asking if she's naked under her shirt, the steward asks her politely if she is, and she gets in a huff about it, telling him it's none of his business. While they are talking, his walkie-talkie antenna catches her shirt, so she screams that he's trying to look up her shirt with a walkie-talkie. He says "I don't want to see your underwear (as she admits)", but just wants her to say if she's wearing anything. She apparently still refuses to answer.
SO, they take her off the plane, where they find that not only is she wearing something, but it's actually SHORTS, meaning now they can't figure out why this woman was so adamant that nobody could see what she was wearing under her shirt. Notice how their statement "Oh, she's wearing SHORTS", makes a lot more sense if they thought she was just wearing underwear.
So the pilot takes all this in -- a woman wearing shorts refuses to say she's wearing shorts and refuses to show her shorts, and instead accuses workers of trying to expose her and causes a big scene. So he thinks she's unstable, and doesn't want her back on the plane.
I have no direct evidence for that story, just the few snippets of her own story re-interpreted. But at least it fits with what happened, and makes a lot more sense than her story, especially the part where she says "Maybe he thought I was cute. "
Highly unlikely.
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.