Don't complain too much. And don't sue if they throw you out.

It was 2008 when Rabbi Ginsburg was tossed out of the Northwest WorldPerks program, allegedly for complaining too much. He filed suit against the company and for the past 5+ years the case has worked its way through the US legal system. SCOTUS finally ruled on the case today. He lost unanimously.



The court essentially ruled that the FF programs are covered by the Airline Deregulation Act meaning that state law won't be able to preempt them with breach of contract claims or similar.

Read more: http://blog.wandr.me/2014/04/lawsuit-decided-against-rabbi-in-frequent-flyer-account-termination/
Read the SCOTUS decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-462_p8k0.pdf

The justices did leave a small opening suggesting that as the programs become less and less tied to the airline operations and more about 3rd party partners that the ADA protection could go away. That would be an interesting shift, though I'm not sure how the interstate commerce clause would apply at that point.

 

Good! This was a total BS lawsuit!

 

I have always wondered: if the guy was a plumber or secretary, would we mention that every time his name/case comes up?

 

I dunno. But it makes for great art on this one.

 

Probably not every time, but often enough to know what he did for a living. The media would, in that case, frame it as Big Bad Company crushing Poor Little Plumber for complaining about bad service.

 

I dunno. What's the occupation of the plaintiff in the UA MM suit?

 

That one's not before the Supreme Court, is it? Those are the ones that usually get the most attention.

 

I sure hope it does not go all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

I don't think this should stop people from complaining about relevant issues, but any unsubstantiated complains in excess will have its consequences.

 

There's also the part where - whether right or wrong - clergy are often seen as having a different level of standards applied to the way they lead their lives and their actions. I do think it is somewhat relevant in this scenario.

 

Nor do I. Hopefully it'll be thrown out before it gets that far. I suspect I may be in the minority with that hope, though.

 

In this "case" that would be a waste of time and tax payers money.

 

Although it happens sometimes as it is, by that logic any millionaire on trial should have "millionaire" placed in front of their name. Or "white, rich" to telegraph the outcome up front.

 

I do agree with you. I hate to see any "labels" prior to reading about a situation. In this case specifically it would make absolutely no difference who that person was or what his name was. It's just not relevant and only paves way for a possibility of some derogatory (or is prejudiced a better word?) comments towards the plaintiff.

 

I happen to disagree with the premise that millionaires are (or should be) held to higher ethical standards than clergy.

 

I know what you're saying, but I think clergy should have the same right to complain about bad service as anyone else. And airlines shouldn't be expected to treat them any different than mere mortals. And I don't think journalists should prejudge the right to file a lawsuit by prefixing the name with a job title. Isn't that effectively saying that plumbers and cab drivers are expected to be filing frivolous lawsuits, but a rabbi should know better (so when one does, it's part of the story).

 

I don't think anybody's saying that they shouldn't have the right to complain about bad service. They shouldn't have the right to extort (can't think of any other word) airlines for compensation, which is what the guy was doing here.

As has been stated in another thread (I think it was on MP, but can't remember for sure) members of the clergy are frequently referred to by Rabbi, Father, Pastor, etc. I don't see anything wrong with referring to him as Rabbi.

And journalists are the most arrogant people around and think they should be able to do/say whatever they want in order to get their "story." If they can do something that will get a good headline, they'll do it, ethics be damned.

 

I'd carefully say "most of the time". But in general you are right. Phil Spector, anyone? On the other hand, Rob Blake though.

 

Seeing how that's not what I was talking about at all, I am glad you are in agreement with me then.

 

I guess what I am saying is that if it's okay for me to complain about something, I don't think there's ever a reason why a Rabbi/Priest shouldn't be allowed to complain. And yes, they shouldn't have the right to extort anymore or less than I have that right. Basically I don't have any higher expectations regarding their behavior.

Fair point, but I do have the feeling that this was only part of the reason why it was mentioned so religiously, pun intended.

Got a scientific study to back up that claim?

Freedom of the press and all? I am okay with that, but I reserve the right to criticize them for it. Freedom of speech and all...

 

Both of those "freedoms" in the 1st amendment are based on what the government is allowed to do, not individuals. :-:

 

No one should, considering how often they get themselves in the news for doing unseemly things.

I don't think there was any religious slight intended. The angle the press was looking for was probably, "This guy's a rabbi, and he was behaving in an un-rabbi-like manner.

My eyes. Watch what happens whenever the press gets heavy criticism for doing something. Their response is some variation of, "We should be able to do whatever we want."

 

Many preachers play this game, read more than one story about them easing hell in First Class..

Religion for many us just a way if saying they are better than the rest if you sinners.,,

God Bless Rev Wright.,and others..,

Wear a Rolex and you are a drug dealer, say God has been good to you and the public says God Bless you Brother..,,

Never missed a church service growing up....