Man fired for racial slur

[CeaBee]

Only if shi fight on his terms. Shi hav ah few advantages ova him. Wi can tek ah page outa di animal kindom. In many cases a bird can kick ah big cats, dog, etc, behine wen har babies are in danger. Shi will tek its eyes out, or pick di hell outa dem headtop, or other painful areas ah dem body.

that sounds very messy. and probably illegal. To answer your question: No I don't think that she would have been more aggressive had she carried the child (assuming by your question, that the child is adopted). I woulda pick up my child and get as far away as possible, not knowing if him intend to try hit the child again. Also sounds like she was travelling alone, not sure who would hold the child for her while she attacking the man bird style.

[lonewolf]

• the airline is not responsible for the individual behavior, they have a duty of care towards its passengers... they seated her besides him....they failed in thweir duty of care....That lady has the right to expect no abuse. If the airline fails to do that they have a duty of care...then they can when a plane crashes put the blame entirely on the pilot....and not pay recompense
• The company he worked for if he was traveling on their behalf....he was their representative. He spoke on their behalf, the compnay owns his work product including his racism.... Corporations have the rights of individuals and the responsibility. This is why the corporations were developed. While on the company dime the company indemnifies its employees...If they disagreed Y did they fire him over the weekend ???

This man struck a child....He swore at a child...

If I was them I would settle this ASAP..


And the company is responsible its repersentative behavior ... much like last year the secret Service types were fired for having sex with prostitutes....

So, what you are saying is that an airline has a crystal ball that they can look into, and see into the future of how their passengers are going to behave, or they should do back ground checks on passengers after they buy tickets, and make sure that none of them are nut cases?....Sorry, I don't buy into your arguement. Airlines are inherently public transportation. Anyone that meets the purchase price can fly, unless they are on a terrorist watch list...don't know of any baby beaters watch list.

Now, if they did not move the mother and baby after the incident, and baby was struck again, I'd agree with you....


...But, the company posted a statement saying that he was on personal business, and not on company business...and how could anyone agree with the verbal and physical abuse of a mother and her baby?
Company made a smart decision by firing the nut case. If they kept him employed they left themselves wide open for future litigation if this guy attacked someone while on duty under their employment, in the office or out of the office conducting business.

[blugiant]

Do you think that the mother would have reacted differently (more agressive) if she had carried the baby fir 9 mo., and given birth to him?

dat wat mii was wandarinn bout.

oww itt wooda go iff itt was mi yuth.

iff annee fool stupid enuff fe slap fe mii yuth

mii wood a stomp da fool regardless aff de consequences

[blugiant]

Why is the company or the airline responsible for an individuals conduct?

If she sues anyone other than the individual, than she is nothing more than an opportunist trying to extort money from innocent parties.

The airlines only responsibility is to report the incident to the authorites immediately, and to restrain the individual, if combative, and land at the closest receiving airport, and when the plane landed the suspect handed over to proper authorites, and arrested for assault.

iff imm was pon duty ar attendinn to compant biz?

iff imm got dicount fram de airline, den dem lieable?

sue de airline cah itt cheaper ann less negative publicity fe settle.