Mom sues Delta Airlines over breastfeeding

[simonsebs]

Mom sues Delta Airlines over breastfeeding (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/10/09/Mom-sues-Delta-Airlines-over-breastfeeding/UPI-21591255067399/)

Even with all the new laws protecting breastfeeding mothers this kind of thing keeps happening.

[nimrod]

Good for her, but I think her complaint would be more valid if she did not wait three years to file it.

[Naturist4Ever]

(quote from article): "Gillette said the incident, three years ago, made her feel "shamed and humiliated" and she continues to suffer anxiety about breastfeeding her second daughter in public places"

Well, a plane isn't a public place... Yes when the baby needs to be fed, it needs to be fed. Hey and when I need to pee I need to pee. So I would expect there are some rules that describe how to deal with each situation - reasonable or not - and in doubt it doesn't hurt to get advise from the attendance staff. What's the deal?

[Kouak]

Well, a plane isn't a public place... Yes when the baby needs to be fed, it needs to be fed. Hey and when I need to pee I need to pee. So I would expect there are some rules that describe how to deal with each situation - reasonable or not - and in doubt it doesn't hurt to get advise from the attendance staff. What's the deal?

I just heard today that one airline is asking its passengers to go potty before boarding. The lighter load will consume less fuel and save the airline lots of money. Not related to breastfeeding but does relate to his post about peeing.

[Bob S.]

N4E: "Well, a plane isn't a public place... Yes when the baby needs to be fed, it needs to be fed. Hey and when I need to pee I need to pee. So I would expect there are some rules that describe how to deal with each situation - reasonable or not - and in doubt it doesn't hurt to get advise from the attendance staff. What's the deal?"

According to US Legal (http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/), a public place is defined as: A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose.

To me, that seems as if a place is a public place. The planes may be privately owned, but the passenger compartments of the plane are more than likely defined as a public or semi-public place. Restaurants are similar places. They can define a dress code for the diners, but they cannot violate other laws dealing with public places. A woman on a flight has the right to breastfeed her baby without others bothering her. Yes, the flight attendants had the right to ask she cover up with a blanket, but she had the right to refuse.

Bob S.

[MeBNude]

Speaking of the appropriate,non-sexual use of women's breasts... :D I agree with Bob completely.

But I also agree with Nimrod... waiting three years to finally complain seems very odd, I mean... by this time, she's practically getting her child ready for pre-school. I would think that the statute of limitations had run... but turns out that Vermont is indeed more liberal than most states that only allow 1 - 2 years for most tort suits.

"[C]laims for 'injuries to the person' to be brought within three years after the cause of action accrues. 12 V.S.A. § 512(4). Gettis v. Green Mt. Econ. Dev. Corp., 2005 VT 117, 21 (Vt. 2005) And emotional distress and "mental suffering" are considered injuries to the person under Vermont law.

Man, I want to be sympathetic here, but I wouldn't have taken this case after almost three years had past. It's too bad that it didn't happen earlier because this means that the airline was enforcing an illegal policy all this time. Oh, well. :rolleyes:

[brainyguy9999]

I also wish she had brought the case much earlier. However, without knowing more, I am skeptical of the woman. I would like to believe that she is bringing this case based solely on her own mental suffering from the situation. However, with the economy like it is, I wonder if she or her family is in a financial predicament and looking for options.

I usually like to trust until there is reason to doubt, but maybe I am becoming more cynical in my old age. I'm starting to doubt until there is reason to trust... :D

I want to see how this plays out...


Stay nude.

bg

[MeBNude]

BrainyGuy... I hope you're right, but aparently, she lives in New Mexico, which has a shorter statute of limitations than Vermont. Filed a complaint (http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Women_s_Health_26/Delta_Boots_Nursing_Mother_Off_Plane_4875_printer. shtml) with the Vermont Human Rights Commission in late 2006. Had a national non-profit group called Mom's Rising (http://www.momsrising.org/112106PressRelease) working to complain to the companies about the practice, gathering something like 19,000 signatures.

So, I guess Delta was made aware of it three years ago, that takes care of one of my concerns. The only reason I can think that a federal law suit was filed recently is because the Vermont Human Rights Commission (http://hrc.vermont.gov/) did their investigation and then closed the case in a way that was not to this lady's satisfaction.

Tried to get a copy of the federal complaint, but would have had to pay money for it, so that is as far as my research goes... free internet research.;)

[Naturist Mark]

People eat on airplanes, the airlines even sell them food and deliver it to their seats. Infants have the same right, under law, in every single state in the USA - in any place where the mother and child are otherwise authorized to be. In many states, including the one in which this incident took place, there are additional state laws specifically protecting that right. This is as clear cut a case of a violation of law as you get, there is absolutely no excuse, legal or moral, for what happened.

Some people do not know the law, and many victims of it don't know they have recourse. In this case Ms. Gillette did not wait 3 years to do anything about it, she first used other means (http://www.mothering.com/lactation-and-law) to seek redress. She placed a complaint with the Vermont Human Rights Commission, which agreed that their human rights were violated and ordered the commuter airline employed by Delta to settle with the Gillette's - which they failed to do. Unfortunately even though what the airlines did was illegal, and were found to be in violation by the state, the state law does not have any provision to force the airlines to do anything about it.

The incident inspired a series of protests against Delta Airlines over the last few years - including "nurse-ins" at Delta counters across the country Unfriendly skies: An update (http://breastfeeding.blog.motherwear.com/2006/11/unfriendly_skie_1.html?no_prefetch=1). This federal lawsuit was only filed after the failure of the airlines to satisfactorily reform their practices to prevent the harassment of other mothers and children and redress the wrongs committed.

This is not a case of someone just suddenly deciding they were wronged 3 years later and going after a big payday. This is a case where a crystal clear violation of law occurred, and the guilty parties have stubbornly refused to do the right thing even after being found guilty.

[nimrod]

.So, I guess Delta was made aware of it three years ago, that takes care of one of my concerns. The only reason I can think that a federal law suit was filed recently is because the Vermont Human Rights Commission (http://hrc.vermont.gov/) did their investigation and then closed the case in a way that was not to this lady's satisfaction.


This is not a case of someone just suddenly deciding they were wronged 3 years later and going after a big payday. This is a case where a crystal clear violation of law occurred, and the guilty parties have stubbornly refused to do the right thing even after being found guilty.

Well this is really good news then, I am glad that she did act right away. I just wish that the origanal story had included this information, then it would not have sounded as if it just came to her to sue.

[brainyguy9999]

Well this is really good news then, I am glad that she did act right away. I just wish that the origanal story had included this information, then it would not have sounded as if it just came to her to sue.

Agree 100%. I hope she wins and everyone makes a big hullabaloo about it.

Thanks for the info.

bg

[Sauna]

Good luck to her