Originally Posted by
scambo1
What it appears to mean is that airlines are exempt from the "hostile work environment" rules that individuals within the organization are at risk for - IF the reason for hostility is "security" related.
I don't really see the land-mark-ness of the ruling though as the OP intimates.
Sure it does. As Rick points out, it gives license to a company to fabricate a whole heck of a lot if they want to. It has the POTENTIAL to be a huge concern. Do you really think that Air W. gentleman was a "threat" to anything? What happened there probably happens somewhere everyday. We've all witnessed and/or heard of disparate treatment...especially in the subjective realm of the training environment. Human emotion is a natural entity but I guess that is not allowed anymore...unless you really trust the powers that be where you work. Do YOU? In reality, what if they unscrupulously fabricate an entire exchange. Wouldn't it be up to YOU to prove them wrong(or reckless, in the words of Sotomayor)? I don't think your word against theirs will suffice.
I was told of a situation/disagreement between a gate agent and a Captain whereby the gate agent falsely stated the facts that happened between them. Capt. was arrested and a trial ensued. I believe the video tape that happened to be trained on the area cleared him. Lucky.
Do not be fooled that this new tool won't attempted be used by "some" company to get around union protections. Every company has "their list" of undesirables, and what each one does (if anything)with this ruling is anybody's guess. The point is, now there is a new precedent. If nothing else, it reinforces the idea of having a third witness to anything other than pleasant conversation while at work.
Three of the Justices saw the forest through the trees.