Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suspect victim tried to negotiate a monetary settlement and was either rebuffed or lowballed, so she is suing. That’s my best guess,
If she was really blown off by airline and not apologized to, nor given some sort of peace offering, then I guess I do get why she feels disrespected (perhaps) and why she is suing.
But Ahmad is the one who is at fault. You do wonder why men do stupid things like this. It always ends badly.
She is suing for negligent hiring and sexual harassment. She’s probably got a claim against at least the employee for sexual harassment and maybe as his employer, the airline, as well. There’s a legal doctrine allowing legal liability to flow through to the employer in some situations. Idk if it fits here (possibly not because he was off duty at the time) but it’s not like it’s strange to be suing the airline, because they have deeper pockets and they employed him. I know she’s only suing the airline, it seems, and I can only assume that’s because she knows she probably won’t really recover from the employee.
So it is a money grab? What would she be looking to recover? She didn't suffer a financial loss.
I don't want anyone reading my name and phone number on my luggage tags, so I always insert them into the tag holder upside down. They have to be pulled out to see my info. The visible part just says "see other side."
So it is a money grab? What would she be looking to recover? She didn't suffer a financial loss.
Aren’t most lawsuits a “money grab”? You typically sue for damages and you don’t always have to have had a financial loss. One can get punitive damages which are intended to punish the wrongdoer. She may have an argument for some type of financial loss - maybe she wants the cost of her ticket compensated, I am not her lawyer nor is anyone else so we don’t know the details of her case other than what has been shared.
Taylor Swift sued the DJ who grabbed her butt (in response to his suit against her because his conduct got him fired and he blamed her - because she’s a multimillionaire and has deep pockets...) for a symbolic $1 and won (while he lost). Did she suffer any financial loss? Highly doubt it.
Aren’t most lawsuits a “money grab”? You typically sue for damages and you don’t always have to have had a financial loss. One can get punitive damages which are intended to punish the wrongdoer. She may have an argument for some type of financial loss - maybe she wants the cost of her ticket compensated, I am not her lawyer nor is anyone else so we don’t know the details of her case other than what has been shared.
Yes, the wrongdoer. She's going after the wrongdoer's employer "because they have deeper pockets". How is that punishing the wrongdoer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Taylor Swift sued the DJ who grabbed her butt (in response to his suit against her because his conduct got him fired and he blamed her - because she’s a multimillionaire and has deep pockets...) for a symbolic $1 and won (while he lost). Did she suffer any financial loss? Highly doubt it.
Yes, the wrongdoer. She's going after the wrongdoer's employer "because they have deeper pockets". How is that punishing the wrongdoer?
Yeah, but she didn't sue his radio station.
Her argument seems to be that the airline was also in the wrong. She’s suing for negligent hiring and presumably using or trying to use a respondeat superior argument for sexual harassment where she’s saying that his employer is responsible for his actions in the capacity he was in at the time he did this. Idk if it will work since that doctrine has certain rules and he was off duty and not on the job at the time this happened which could impact her case if this is what she’s saying but I assume this is what they’re trying to do. If you are trying to get damages for any case you will not go after someone with little to no assets if there’s an entity or individual involved that can also be held liable that has assets. This is a really common thing to do when filing a lawsuit, not unusual at all.
Again not sure what exactly she’s looking for but it’s possible she either is only going after the airline because she sees a larger problem here than just the guy who harassed her or she knows that he is less likely to be able to pay and that his employer, who she is also blaming, can pay because they’re a large corporation.
The article says that someone from the airline contacted her. And she says that she wanted more information, and she was being put off.
Trying to put myself in her shoes...first and primarily, I would want to know that (a) Ahmad doesn't have my information anymore, and (b) is he fired?
Maybe I'm not reading the article right, but it's not clear to me that THAT information was conveyed to the victim. The article says that after the investigation, Ahmad was fired...but was that conveyed to the lady? Maybe that's what the "negligent hiring" charge comes from?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
