United Airlines is being sued by two of its flight attendants in Califonria Superior Court (Guillory v. United Airlines, Inc, 20-civ-03889) because they’re veteran cabin crew who want to work sports charters, and the airline only assigns “young, blond crews” to work with sports teams.
The employees, “a Black woman who has worked for the airline for 28 years and a Jewish woman with 34 years of tenure,” claim the airline’s scheduling is racist and based on “sexual allure.”
This applies to charters for about 36 teams:
- NFL
- Major League Baseball
- NCAA college sports
And flight attendants being shut out of these flights damages them because working the charters sometimes means receiving game tickets, “including playoff and Super Bowl tickets, and “extremely valuable” infield passes.”
Sharon Tesler and Kim Guillory said they were told by supervisors that they were unable to get work on the charters because they weren’t on “preferred” lists that were based on team preferences, according to the complaint.
They said they later discovered that young, white blond attendants — with less seniority — were given the assignments.
Airlines generally have specially picked cabin crew for public relations and VIP events. There’s nothing unique about that.
For instance there’s one American Airlines flight attendant I know who was in the airline’s safety video prior to the US Airways merger. I first met her when she was working the ‘oneworld MegaDO’ charter flight in January 2012. She was standing in the galley as media boarded a Boeing 777 months later when top management shared the airline’s plans for improved premium service – new seats, meals, amenities – as part of its plan to emerge from bankruptcy independently as a stronger carrier.
It seems to me that flight attendants may have difficulty demonstrating, absent a smoking gun, that United Airlines uses a legally improper criteria selecting employees to work high profile flights and that if they want more of a say or a change to criteria that’s a subject for their union’s collective bargaining rather than for the courts.
That would mean, though, taking work away from one flight attendant and giving it to another – not creating any net new opportunities for cabin crew. If there was something inappropriate going on here, I’d expect to see it in AFA-CWA union head Sara Nelson’s twitter feed…
I could see the blonde part being an issue if the airline defines it as needing to appear “natural” (which can mean a white person with bleached blonde hair is fine but a black/brown person with it dyed or a wig is not.).
Otherwise, this is akin to Hooters or Twin Peaks only hiring certain body/age types for servers, which is legal as long as it doesn’t get into race issues.
@ Gary — This is an example of why unions can be bad. This business will simply be driven to someone else. If I were a hunky/hot pro athlete, I would want young, hot flight attendants serving me on my flight. Having young (not sure why they need to white and blonde??), attractive flight attendants is a perk of their job.
…and queue Cleavon Little the Sheriff of Rockridge, “Where the white women at!”
If you’ve been there for +20 years why are you mad now??
NO one, not a single person on earth, wants to look at unattractive people
Conventionally attractive physical appearance is not a bona fide occupational qualification for being a flight attendant. Title VII still applies to an employer even where there is a CBA.
Sorry but looks matter in any business. I realize that is likely perceived as shallow but many studies have shown that more attractive people (and taller men) do better as sales people or company representatives. The person is an extension of their company and, while skill and experience clearly matter, looks are part of the overall package. To ignore that or act like we should have a world where looks just don’t matter is to ignore reality!
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine claims the restaurant is hiring waitress that only have big boobs.
I’m sure there’s some truth to this. But is that wrong? If they go by seniority then these flights, which I assume the teams are paying good money for, is going to be staffed by the same grumpy old FA’s the rest of us get to enjoy.
Hmm -not all the athletes are young & “hunky” so why should the FA requirement be young blondes—HUGE double standard.
Young blond does not mean attractive per se. Those aren’t even the qualities that men seek to objectify. Men want phat asses and tig ol bitties.
I’m quite certain the “blonde” aspect is being hyped as part of the lawsuit. Attractive, young and fun is more in line with what any guy finds attractive. Pro athletes could marry or date any “type” of woman they want, yet they don’t all marry blondes.
So why would they request or the airline exclusively provide something the players obviously don’t care about?
What they likely do care about? Not having women around who are prone to sue them.
@David “is this wrong?” in the eyes of the courts: In the “Love Airlines” case Southwest claimed the right to hire only attractive young women as flight attendants in order to appeal to what was then mostly male business travelers. A federal court determined that the essence of the Southwest Airlines business was transportation not sexual allurement, so their employment policy was illegal sex discrimination.
So when the teams and players talk about BLM, I guess they mean “Blonde lives matter”
I thought the NFL was all “woke”?
…And then there was Hooters Air…
How about male flight attendants? Has UA assigned any male flight attendants to those flights? If so, did they only choose attractive, young and handsome male flight attendants also? If no male flight attendant was assigned to those flights, they should be part of the law suit. If the UA fight attendant union never bargained with the management the way charter flights are assigned, naturally management can do whatever they want. And maybe, this issue can be addressed on their future contract negotiations. But maybe, the flight attendants that brought the lawsuit can prove that they were disadvantaged/discriminated by being looked over. For those who want to look at (or hook up with) good looking people, go to a bar, strip club, join tinder, grinder., etc. Then you can pick and choose whomever… You are being transported on an airplane (charter or not) from one city to another. I would rather have a flight attendant who is professional, enjoying what they are doing, respectful, and delivers good customer service…
It’s a tough issue for a few reasons. The idiot @jojo might as well just crawl into hole and wait for nature to take its course if he means what he says.
But apart from that, it’s true that certain looks do make the kinds of impressions that often help companies’ bottom lines. Yet, how often have we been attracted to people who aren’t necessarily going to win a contest based on looks, but whose personality makes them so much fun and so desirable, while also being repulsed by objectively beautiful folk who are distant, unhelpful and sometimes downright horrible?
When it comes to flight attendants, we all know the cliche (based on many real world examples) of the employee who has been at it a number of years and really hates his/her job (or at least grown very tired of it) and can barely muster a smile while providing bare minimum level service. Yet there are still many gems who have been flying for years who still exhibit the enthusiasm of a new hire and who still go out of their way to make passengers feel special.
If airlines based their sports-team crewing on those attendants who always receive high marks from passengers (if only there was a way to get consistent feedback) then it seems to me everybody would be happy, except for those attendants who never draw such special assignments. But at least that way, those complaining would have no basis for their issues and would have to face the fact that they just are not desirable.
Actually, this sexual discrimination case is far more Woke than encouraging FAs to wear a BLM button on their uniform. As it’s been said, “”talk is cheap.” How the airline acts says everything!
This is as pathetic as the head of the NFL suddenly kowtowing to BLM.
I’m not seeing grounds for a lawsuit if the flight attendants or the qualities of flight attendants are required by the sports teams. Pretty sure sports teams can chose who they want to give their business to based on whatever factors they want. United should not have to lose a contract because some flight attendants are not attractive enough to get them the contract. Is it morally inappropriate for sports teams to behave in this way? Absolutely. They clearly just want to sexually objectify the flight attendants. Is it illegal? Don’t think so. Now if United did this on their own and it was not at a team request and it was not tied to whether or not they would be awarded the contract then maybe there is a claim there.
@Dwight – which had separate Hooters girls on board in addition to flight attendants
Could you imagine how libs/fascist would react if a VP candidate was selected based on gender & race? Oh wait ! They’ve done that already
Don’t see this as akin to the “Love Airlines” case if this is a request that is being made by the sports teams themselves. Also the “Love Airlines” case was a lawsuit by men because the airline was refusing to hire them. United isn’t refusing to hire anybody. These plantiffs are just mad because they can’t get the plum assignment due to their not meeting the requirements of the customer. This all feels nonsensical. What next? All bartenders have to be ugly? Assuming that its true that the sports teams made these specific requests then if someone wants to be outraged then go be outraged at the sports teams not the airlines who are trying to win contracts and business.
WHAT MMKK said!!! You’d think the JOB/WORK assignments would be based upon MERIT, not looks. So basically it’s TRUE what blacks, etc have been protesting all along. People still judge and exclude upon appearances. So wrong in numerous ways. Just give me the highest rated/EXPERIENCED employees, period!! (If there were no male FA’s on those flight, I hope the WORKERS win.) The sports teams that promoted this are WACK and hypocrites!!
the airline is not culpable. i worked at an FBO and the athletes are the one’s who expect this standard of crew. the operator is only complying with that requirement. the performance of the athletes are paramount so they want their travelling atmosphere to include the cabin crew that will be as appealing to their people. this was evident on all charters, even NBA flights whose demographics should of staffed more alike crew but they did not which proves the airlines are not at fault.
Hmm we should think about what we do. There is rational thinking and irational thinking. One : We get upset when Jeff you know that guy who committed suicide because he was caught using Young girls for service which was WRONG. TWO: The airline’s are allowed to use YOUNG blonds for service and that makes it Ok? Irational thinking: Oh it is all ok. Rational thinking: None of it is ok
Nothing will go unexposed in these transitional times. Peoples real nature included( author, posts) continued sexualization and objectification of women/ other humans, racial discrimination, and poor excuses condoning bad behavior. And that is what everyone will see. Although we also have to have compassion for those who don’t know any better, this is what they were taught, all they know, they haven’t grown past it, maybe incapable to. Apologies, accountability and correction of behavior would be nice. It’s not the team members, it’s the team management and the executives in the airlines.
Always someone complaining about something. You cant go any where on earth without hearing a whiner.
Everyone rather look at a foxy babe
all day long. Airlines figure if they put grumpy and cry babies on these flights that NFL will use another carrier.
Sounds like sour grapes from the ‘fat chicks’ and the ‘ fudge-packers’ unions. Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha…
In a free society, the case would be thrown out immediately. No one has the right to any particular job or position. Everyone discriminates multiple times per day and discrimination is necessary for a properly functioning society.
And then what? I’m a old lady and I like to see all the flight attendants with good looking, neat, and for many years I’ve been seen a lot of ladies with bad appearance, kind of disdain about themselves, and some with horrible shoes, not a touch of femininity. Many overnights flights some don’t even comb their hair. UNITED is right. Being patient , skilled , polite counts as well.
Make me laugh someone sued UNITED for their choose younger people and good looking. See Etihad, Emirates, Qatar, Brazilian airlines, and many other do the same for long time!
The assumption that these woman where unattractive is mean and simply racist. This is racism at its finest. To deny somebody money based on their looks is against the law. (If that was true I’m sure some of y’all would be jobless). To compare it to Hooters is simpleminded. That’s their business model. It is not United’s. The union has nothing to due with this. White men do.
Very Junior flight attendents work charters usually because they can’t hold a line assignment for the month like the senior flight attendents can. Junior flight attendents are on reserve standby and are called out as need be, usually on short notice. Sometimes there is special training required for certain groups on board, like for miltary ops, etc.
The senior flight attendents here are looking for media attention and money and they should read their union contract more carefully before they contact the media for their racist statements toward blondes, be they be women or men.
As the Plaintiff in this suit, I find most of these comments disheartening. To read that most people are in alignment with the injustice of equality and equity, which was the basis for the suit, it not surprising and embedded in the American plight. These comments substantiate why our society is still hovering over the era of the 20th century. While beauty is used as the basis for many areas in life, inequality and equity, both of which are violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, should never be the determining factor in employment.