Gay Couples Lawsuit Against United Airlines to Go to Trial

Back on August 26, 2012, I wrote here about the travesty done to a young gay professional couple from Norfolk (who are as a disclaimer close personal friends) seemingly by employees of United/Continental Airlines at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.  As I recited at the time, in response to demand letters, the leadership of the airline basically "flipped the bird" to these innocent victims and victimized them yet again - even though United/Continental Airlines claims to be LGBT friendly through their involvement with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.  In my view - and as the saying goes - actions speak louder than words.  And Continental's actions have spoken volumes.  So much so, that the husband and I have made a point to NOT fly on United/Continental since 2012 (our upcoming trip to Paris will be on American Airlines).

For those who are newer readers, the tape on the bag pictured above clearly reads "Continental Airlines" and tellingly, the zipper on the bag was undamaged (I saw the luggage bag personally), so that there was no legitimate basis for taping up the bag while unzipped.  The actions against this couple by United/Continental employees were both shocking and clearly done to invade the couple's privacy and to inflict intentional emotional distress as the baggage made its way around the luggage carousel at Norfolk International Airport to the couple's horror.

 

Due to the airline's shocking attitude, the couple filed a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas District Court, in a lawsuit is styled Bridgeman, et al v. United Continental Holdings, Inc. and Continental Airlines, Inc., on August 24, 2012.  Since that date, the case history has been like something out of a John Grisham novel with the huge corporation trying any and all means to wear down the individual plaintiffs.  United Continental first removed the case to federal court (the case is Case 4:12-cv-02848) and argued that Article 17(1) or Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention - which governs international flights - applied and that the couple's claims are preempted.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas accepted this argument and dismissed the case.  Our friends appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal in November, 2013, and remanded the case back to the District Court.   As Jonathan Turley noted on his blog, this was an important (and negative) ruling for the airline United/Continental and the airline industry:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has handed down an important ruling in favor of two gay men who were the targets of a foul joke by employees of United Continental airlines. 

What is most striking about this case is not only the refusal of United Continental to settle the case but the sweeping argument the airlines tried to make to strip passengers of the ability to seek damages for such outrageous and disturbing conduct by airlines.

The court found that the convention did not apply under Article 17(1) because this injury was not suffered on the flight or as part of exiting or disembarking. Thus, it remained subject to state law. On Article 17(2), the court ruled:

The alleged misconduct in this case simply does not relate to any damage to Plaintiffs’ duffel bag, which they admit is “just fine” and undamaged; rather, Plaintiffs seek a remedy for the way in which their bag was utilized to inflict personal injury. Accordingly, we decline to shoehorn Plaintiffs’ claims into the substantive scope of Article 17(2) merely because a bag is central to their factual basis. Instead, we reach our conclusion based on a natural reading of Article 17(2)’s text

The claims are therefore not preempted by the convention.  United Continental in the meantime showed that, once again, airlines treat passengers as voiceless, rightless living luggage. If they had prevailed, passengers would have been barred from seeking relief in state courts for even the most egregious conduct by airline employees.

Fast forward another year and a half and United/Continental has suffered a major blow.  After countless depositions and motions and briefs, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has denied United/Continental's motion for summary judgment.  The order was entered on April 29, 2015 and is now available on pacer for subscribers.This means that the case will go to trial and that there will be a public airing of some of the airline's, in my view, outrageous arguments and defenses.  For the life of me, I do NOT understand why the airline has not made a serious settlement offer.  It has already spent a huge sum on legal fees and settling would have avoided the bad precedent now set by the 5th Circuit ruling and continued bad publicity.

Stay tuned for more coverage as the matter goes to trial. 

5th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Gay Couple's Lawsuit Against United Airlines

As some readers will recall, back in August, 2012, a young professional gay couple filed a lawsuit against United/Continental Airlines in connection with an outrage done to them by employees of United/Continental Airlines at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.  Here are some highlights of the facts as laid out in the lawsuit:

On May 21, 2011, Plaintiff's a homosexual couple, were returning from vacation on a flight provided by Defendants United Continental Holdings, Inc., and Continental Airlines, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Continental") from Costa Rica to Norfolk, Virginia with a layover at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.  When Plaintiffs arrived at Houston, they retrieved their checked luggage, which was undisturbed at that time.  After going through Customs, Plaintiffs rechecked their bags, and proceeded to board their flight to Norfolk.  Upon arriving in Norfolk, Plaintiffs exited the aircraft and went to the baggage claim area.  Plaintiffs' bags were sent to the baggage carousel where Plaintiffs discovered to their horror, that a private sex toy had been removed from one of their bags, covered with a greasy foul-smelling substance, and taped prominently to the top of their bag.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas opted to tax the lazy easy  way out and dismissed the lawsuit citing narrow provisions of the Montreal Convention, more formally known as the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air.  Today, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court and remanded the case back for trial.  Here are excerpts from the 5th Circuit's ruling:

This appeal involves whether two airline travelers’ state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and negligence in connection with the airline’s alleged placement of a sex toy on their baggage are preempted by Article 17(1) or Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention. We hold that the plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by either. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss and REMAND for further proceedings.

Article 17 of the Montreal Convention contains two provisions relevant to this case: Article 17(1) imposes liability on carriers for injuries to passengers and Article 17(2) for damage to baggage. 2242 U.N.T.S. at 355. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that their state-law claims do not fall within the scope of either provision. We agree and address each provision in turn.

Here, any connection between the alleged misconduct—the display of Plaintiffs’ bag in the baggage-claim area—and the “operations of embarking or disembarking” [within the scope of Article 17(1)] is tenuous at best.

Plaintiffs’ state-law claims rely on the fact that their bag was “in the charge of the carrier,” and it is clear that their bag was not destroyed or lost. Thus, whether Article 17(2) preempts Plaintiffs’ claims boils down to whether they seek a remedy for “damage to checked baggage.”

We hold that they do not and that, therefore, Article 17(2) does not preempt Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

No doubt Continental will be less than pleased with today's ruling.  Now, the question is whether the airline will accept responsibility for the acts of its employees and do the right thing or continue to litigate the matter.   Either way, I will continue to avoid United Airlines when I travel based on the experiences of my good friends.

Sex Toy Lawsuit: Exclusive Interview By Channel 3's Barbara Ciara

UPDATED:  Last night's on camera interview of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against United Continental for desecrating their luggage can be found here.  I hope readers will listen to the interview and draw their own conclusions.  In doing so, remember this: the zipper on the luggage was completely undamaged and the tape shown in the photo had Continental Airline's logo on it.

Last month I wrote about the lawsuit filed against United Continental Airlines by two close friends who had their luggage desecrated by personnel at Houston Intercontinental Airport in Houston as they returned from a trip to Costa Rica.  I did a companion piece on The Bilerico Project that was picked up by Huffington Post which in turn went viral and literally swept the news media around the world.  Tonight at 11:00 PM the couple gives their first on camera interview to discuss their experience and their motivations for suing the airline.  Here are highlights from WTKR-TV 3 as it promotes the interview:

 

Most people who travel tolerate the fact that strangers go through their personal belongings inside their luggage. It’s creepy thinking of someone going through your underwear, but it’s an intrusion we have come to accept in the years since 9/11.

As Barbara Ciara reports, a Norfolk couple claims baggage handlers displayed the private contents of their luggage to create public pain.  Hear their story, tonight at 11.

Barbara Ciara is well respected in Hampton Roads and has shown herself to be non-judgmental of the LGBT community.  Hopefully, the interview will do the story and my friends justice.  I will report more tomorrow after the segment airs and is available on line.

How to Save Marriage: Religious Sex -Toy Sites

What makes a vibrator holy? That's a question investigated by an article The Daily Beast which demonstrates that someone there has a great sense of humor. The post looks at the growing market for sex toys via "religious" sex-toy shops online and is too funny. Sample sites are "Covenant Spice" which describes itself as "Christ honoring sex and romance site for couples," and "Intimacy of Eden" which promises to ignite passion and romance for a healthy, heavenly marriage." Apparently, the theory behind the products is that good sex will strengthen the marriages of the self-congratulatory pious set. After all, these "godly Christians" have been raised to view all things sexual as nasty and dirty. Even as they lust for it probably all the more - sort of the forbidden fruit is always more alluring type of thing.

However, don't hold your breath waiting for Catholic related online shops to spring up any time soon. Per the teachings of the bitter old men in dresses in Rome, sex is only for procreation (unless you're a priest raping an altar boy, of course) and if there's even a hint of pleasure and enjoyment involved, then a trip to the confessional is clearly in order. Maybe Maggie Gallagher and Elaine Donnelly should check out these sites so that they could losing their obsessions with gay sex. Here are some highlights from the post:

Sex and religion have long been perceived to be at odds, with carnal pleasures representing sin more than saintliness. Yet in recent years, a handful of savvy Christian, Jewish and Muslim entrepreneurs have embraced the notion that the two can coexist in a way that jibes with doctrine—and even glorifies traditional values by strengthening marriages.

Enter the religious sex-toy industry, which carefully markets and sells a range of sexual-pleasure products to the faithful. With the voice and disposition of a summer-camp director, Joy Wilson founded Book 22 a decade ago, when she had trouble “getting her body to respond” to her husband after their second child, and her online search for remedies yielded scandalous imagery that offended more than it helped. The pioneering site, named after the Biblical book also known as the Song of Solomon, now faces growing competition from rival vendors including Hooking Up Holy, Intimacy of Eden, and Covenant Spice.

And the industry grew exponentially this fall with the launch of the Orthodox Jewish shop Kosher Sex Toys, and last year with the Muslim vendor El Asira.

To be clear, the “religious people” targeted are married, heterosexual religious people; pious sex-toy vendors market their products exclusively to these couples. Unlucky in love and looking for some solitary fun after morning prayers? Look elsewhere.

The burgeoning niche, part of the roughly $15 billion sex-toy industry, reports that business has been steadily growing, with most sites shipping a few hundred orders per month. Clients usually find them through Google, say the owners, or a thoughtful religious leader or astute sex therapist.

To an outsider, visiting the religious sites feels a bit like listening to the bleeped-out version of an explicit hip-hop song: the substance is the same, it’s just missing the X-rated details. None of the sites feature any nudity, instead relying on mannequins to display lingerie. Nor do they feature any sexy language. Kosher Sex Toys, for example, rewrites product descriptions that risk shocking its audience. (The “Butterfly Clitoris Stimulator” becomes, simply, the “Vibrating Stimulator.”) And while they don’t flaunt their holiness, they’ll occasionally rely on religious messaging to sell themselves, or perhaps put potential customers at ease. Book 22, for example, promises to “enhance the intimate life of all God’s children.”

Despite consistencies across the religious sites, the vendors do vary based on doctrine, audience, and each owner’s preferences. Wilson refuses to sell anal devices and condoms, not because she objects, but because her customers do. “The Catholics protested the condoms, and the evangelical Christian community is sensitive about anal sex and play,” she said. “But I’ll special order anything if people ask.”

The homepage for El Asira, which means “The Society” in Arabic, is partitioned by gender, with two ornate mosque doors—and while it carries women's lingerie and a range of massage products, oils and lubricants sell best.

Meanwhile, Kosher Sex Toys’ Gavriel won’t stock male masturbatory aids because, he says, God frowns on wasted potential, according to the Torah. However, since Judaism doesn't prohibit female self-pleasure, he carries myriad trinkets that buzz. He also proudly sells whips and drip candles; performance-enhancing pills and sprays; clear-heeled shoes and thigh-high boots; and a variety of handcuffs, restraints, and tools for cutting them off.

Indeed, navigating ingrained religious beliefs, and misconceptions, about sex and pleasure poses a continuous challenge for site owners, who have either taken it upon themselves to advise clients or enlisted the help of experts. Wilson pursued a master's degree in counseling to better help her customers. And Kosher Sex Toys keeps the rabbi and sex therapist Ribner on call as a licensed authority on both sex and scripture. Because of a lack of proper sex education, Ribner said, religious couples often suffer from misguided advice.

Sex Toys for Alabama Attorney General Troy King

Having once lived in Mobile, Alabama, in the years since I moved away, the state - or at least some politicians - seem to have become nuttier and nuttier and down right obsessed with all things sexual. The recent efforts to shut down the sale of sex toys within the sate by GOP Attorney General Troy King is perhaps the most crazy example. Fortunately, not all Alabama residents are taking this lying down. Even the conservative Mobile Press-Register has a column condemning the AG's efforts (http://www.al.com/opinion/press-register/fcoleman.ssf?/base/opinion/1195381246248290.xml&coll=3) Better yet, blogger Loretta Nall has launched an effort to encourage the shipment of sex toys to the AG's office. Nothing is more fun than to see a fundie exposed for the nut case that they are. Here are some highlights from Loretta's blog (a cartoon of Mr. King is set out above):

The Birmingham News is reporting that Attorney General Troy King might push for tougher anti-obscenity laws in the next legislative session because of a recent court's ruling that the current laws are too vague with regard to Love Stuff, an adult toy shop.

Now, I only have six words to say to AG King about his anti-dildo crusade..FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS TROY!!!

I think that Troy may not have any experience with devices used in sexual pleasure, so, I am starting a crusade to introduce Troy King to the fabulous world of ben-wa balls, rubber weiners and pocket tooties. I want to encourage all of my readers to purchase a sex toy of some sort and send it to Alabama Attorney General Troy King. I also think there is something fundamentally wrong with a grown, college educated, elected official who seems to obsess over what other consenting adults in his home state might be using in the privacy of their bedrooms. I mean...don't we have much more serious problems in Alabama that our Attorney General should address?

Send your SEX TOYS FOR TROY to:

Alabama Attorney General

c/o Troy King

11 South Union St., 3rd floor

Montgomery, AL 36130

If you participate and send a toy to Troy please post in the comments. I want to track how many he gets.

UPDATE: This seems to have caught on and is being carried by the following Alabama blogs.

Alabama Moderate

AntDawgBitter

Daily Dixie

Gordon Unleashed

MetaChat