Swa Not Liable In Eenie Meenie Miney Mo Case

KCFlyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
11,224
1,427
Airline not liable in suit over rhyme

A Southwest Airlines flight attendant's variation of the “Eenie, meenie, minie, moe†rhyme did not discriminate against two black passengers, a federal jury decided Wednesday.

The eight-member jury in Kansas City, Kan., deliberated for less than an hour before ruling in favor of the airline.

Louise Sawyer of Merriam and Grace Fuller of Lenexa, who are siblings, had sued the airline over an incident on a February 2001 flight from Las Vegas to Kansas City.

As the two women struggled to find seats on the crowded plane, Southwest Airlines flight attendant Jennifer Cundiff said over the intercom, “Eenie, meenie, minie, moe; pick a seat, we gotta go.â€

Sawyer, 46, and Fuller, 49, said the rhyme immediately struck them as a reference to an older, racist version in which the first line is followed by “catch a n--- by the toe.â€

The two women testified at the two-day trial that they were embarrassed, humiliated and frustrated. Fuller testified that she suffered a small seizure on the flight home, which was triggered by the remark. Later at home, she said she had a grand mal seizure and was bedridden for three days.

Cundiff, 25, testified that she never had heard the racist version and that she was only trying to inject humor to make the flight more enjoyable and memorable. She wanted passengers to take their seats so the plane could leave.

Outside the courtroom, Fuller said there was enough evidence for the jury to find in favor of her and her sister.

“There is no justice in America for blacks … †Fuller said.

“It's a shame that the jury pool we had to draw from did not have one black and not one minority. Something has to be done to make sure there is justice in America for blacks.â€

The jury consisted of seven white men and a white woman.

Scott A. Wissel, a Kansas City lawyer who represented Sawyer and Fuller, declined to comment about the verdict.

John W. Cowden, a Kansas City lawyer representing Southwest Airlines, said he and his client were pleased with the jury's finding.

“All along, Southwest Airlines has contended that it did not intentionally discriminate against the two ladies,†he said. “We are pleased the jury agreed and vindicated Southwest and its flight attendant, Jennifer Cundiff.â€

Cundiff, who lives near Dallas, said she was relieved and thought that the jury had reached a fair and just verdict. She maintained that the rhyme had been directed at several passengers, not just Sawyer and Fuller.

“When I first heard they complained about what I said, I didn't know what they were talking about,†said Cundiff, who, at the time, had been an attendant for eight months.

While Cundiff said she probably would never use the rhyme again, “I will not tell anyone not to say it.â€

In court testimony, the two women said they originally had sent letters to Southwest Airlines complaining about the use of the rhyme and how they thought it was racially offensive. They wanted Southwest Airlines to stop using it.

However, they said they decided to file their lawsuit out of frustration when Southwest Airlines did not take their complaints seriously.

In their lawsuit, they alleged that Southwest violated a 1981 civil rights law that prevents businesses from discriminating against minority customers by treating them differently from white customers for the same service. They contended that they suffered physical and emotional distress because of the rhyme.

Wissel said in his closing argument that Cundiff's use of the rhyme was tantamount to a racial slur.

He said the action prevented his clients from enjoying the same privileges and conditions as the white passengers.

Cowden, on the other hand, argued that Cundiff's use of the rhyme was an innocent attempt at humor.

“At best, this is an argument that something is not politically correct,†Cowden told jurors. “At worst, it is nothing. Certainly, this does not support a violation of a federal statute, because these words were spoken.â€

To reach Robert A. Cronkleton, Wyandotte County police

and courts reporter, call

(816) 234-5994 or send e-mail to [email protected].
 
"Fuller testified that she suffered a small seizure on the flight home, which was triggered by the remark. Later at home, she said she had a grand mal seizure and was bedridden for three days."

Yeah, that should be worth a small fortune. Gimme a break!

Fortunately, the jury saw right through this scam and exonerated SWA, but that the case went to trial in the first case is ridiculous. Of course, then again, we have to play the race card and say we lost because of racial injustice. What a bunch of B.S.

P.S. The above is the PC version!
 
My faith has been restored in our judicial system. This was a ridiculous and frivilous lawsuit that wasted the time of our courts and the 7 jurors involved. These two women knew their case had no merit and were only gouging for dollars, attention, and/or vengence. This case should have never even reached trial. The judge that allowed it to be needs to grow a spine. He wasted our tax dollars and the time of 7 jurors with this B.S.
 
How completely Ridiculous...... I guess it is true that everyone is SUE happy these days.... And of Course they ALWAYS have to bring up the RACE ISSUE !!!!


When my Daughter was little and wasn't sure which flavored Popsicle she wanted I taught her ....EENIE MEENIE MINEY MO....Followed by CATCH A PICKLE BY THE TOE !!!!!


CONGRADULATIONS ON WINNING THIS LAW SUIT!!!!!!!!!!!! :up:
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #5
Actually, in yesterdays paper, the case was all but won when the judge ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue for "emotional distress" or "physcial injury" earlier in the week. So basically, all that was at stake at the trial was forcing SWA to offer "sensitivity training" to their workforce.

And while the ladies may play the race card, a jury in the same Federal Court awarded an African American woman $56,000 in actual damages and $1,100,000 in punative damages in a case against Dillard's department stores. So much for "no justice for blacks".
 
KCFlyer said:
And while the ladies may play the race card, a jury in the same Federal Court awarded an African American woman $56,000 in actual damages and $1,100,000 in punative damages in a case against Dillard's department stores. So much for "no justice for blacks".




Gee, what did they do to her ?????

I had recieved an email about "Why we have attorneys" It consisted of a story about a woman who sued a Furniture Store after being injured in their store after a child that was running around tripped her.... She won several(I Believe) thousand dollars...Problem was.........IT WAS HER KID !!!!!!! :shock:
 
"My faith has been restored in our judicial system. "

True, the case should have been thrown out. Just be glad the case wasn't heard at the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals in SFO...that bunch would have awarded ownership of the airline to the pair who initiated the suit!
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #8
desertfox said:
"My faith has been restored in our judicial system. "

True, the case should have been thrown out. Just be glad the case wasn't heard at the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals in SFO...that bunch would have awarded ownership of the airline to the pair who initiated the suit!
HOw right you are.
 
The eight-member jury in Kansas City, Kan., deliberated for less than an hour before ruling in favor of the airline.

What took them so long?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top