Amtrak passenger claims discrimination

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find one flaw in the story. She said that she was in BC and that their was no tray table. As it's described in the story. All the BC cars have them. I believe their was no indication it was reserved. But the rest is kind of fishy.
 
Acela150 said:
I find one flaw in the story. She said that she was in BC and that their was no tray table. As it's described in the story. All the BC cars have them. I believe their was no indication it was reserved. But the rest is kind of fishy.
Click to expand...
The way I read it the dispute is whether the trays were lowered in order to function as an indication that those seats were reserved.

Prince claimed he had lowered the tray table on both seats to keep them vacant for the pending couple. McMillan said there was no tray table or any other indication that the seat was reserved.
Click to expand...
If the plaintiff truly has three witnesses who are willing and able to corroborate her version of events then that sounds bad for Amtrak, at least at first glance. I think part of the problem is that the way seats are assigned and the way these assignments are enforced is so random that it leaves the whole process open to multiple interpretations. On airlines you generally know your seat long before you board unless you give up that option for a lower fare or a last minute purchase. Even on Southwest whichever seat is free when you board is yours for the rest of your segment(s) without being second guessed thereafter. Whereas on Amtrak you give up most if not all control over where you sit no matter how early you purchase, how early you check-in, or how much you pay, as per the policy of the carrier itself. Yes, I understand that there are reasons Amtrak does not itself assign seats (or allow seats to be self-assigned) in advance. Unfortunately one of the consequences of such a seating policy is that it could be interpreted to be discriminatory depending on how professionally the staff handles their ability to arbitrarily move people around, especially after they've already found seats.
 
This is only speculation, but possibly the conductor was a shirty Jack-in-office, as conductors often have been throughout history, the plaintiff drew the wrong conclusion, and things snowballed from there.

Probably Amtrak will settle the suit for a piddling figure, as it usually does, well before it gets to trial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amtrak's seating policy needs to be consistent. Each passenger is entitled to a seat. Who gets what seat is normally based on first come first served in bc. That conductor absolutely had no business asking anybody to move for someone getting on later. He had no business saving seats either. If he had minded his own business he and Amtrak wouldn't be in this mess.
 
Well honestly I think the guy was just being an Amtrak jerk. But... I'm sure glad he's finding out what his attitude can cause.
 
I have been asked to move to another seat to accommodate a family on trains &

airplanes and have always been happy to do so. Nearly every time, the attendant

asked in a nice manner and usually, the family was within my sight. I always felt

that someday, i would be the one traveling with my family!!
 
And there-in lies a problem in one regard. The story lacks the information on if the couple referenced was even on the train when this lady was told to move. I've also been told to change seats because a party of two were being assigned, but every time the party in question was nearby.

I agree. It will be settled out of court and swept beneath the rug. The conductor involved will have an EEO refresher course and a letter in his file, and that will be the end of it.
 
Looking at this, I think I regret not catching hold of an attorney and suing Amtrak for hate crime/racial discrimination when a Diner staff on #21 last year told me "You should not come into the Diner again. Are you a terrorist?" and then followed up with "just kidding". I could have presented a good case that he said what he said because of my skin color and made some good money from Amtrak, either from lawsuit or as out-of-court settlement. Alas, I am not one of those sue-happy people.
 
When I boarded the Palmetto at the beginning of it's run in Savannah, half the seats in the front of the car were 'reserved', with aisle tray table down. the attendant said there was a group expected later. I think she actually was guarding against everyone taking a single seat, so that couples and families boarding later would not be able to sit together without asking someone to move. No 'group' got on between Savannah and my departure at Fayetteville, and those seats were gradually filled. CJ
 
Texan Eagle said:
Looking at this, I think I regret not catching hold of an attorney and suing Amtrak for hate crime/racial discrimination when a Diner staff on #21 last year told me "You should not come into the Diner again. Are you a terrorist?" and then followed up with "just kidding". I could have presented a good case that he said what he said because of my skin color and made some good money from Amtrak, either from lawsuit or as out-of-court settlement. Alas, I am not one of those sue-happy people.
Click to expand...
I have no reason to doubt this happened as stated. However, even if you were willing to sue that doesn't mean your lawsuit would actually go anywhere. A lawyer (or firm) would need to believe in your case enough to cover the costs until judgement or settlement. Depending on the complexity of the case and duration of the lawsuit these costs could far exceed what any one of us could afford on our own. Presumably there were witnesses to this event but finding them and convincing them to participate in your lawsuit might not be easy or beneficial if they're not already willing to help and capable of presenting a clear and concise explanation of the incident in question. Bringing a generic he-said/she-said dispute to court is unlikely to be resolved in your favor. In some cases it could even backfire if the defendant is able to provide evidence and witnesses claiming the lawsuit was motivated by fraud or some sort of vendetta.

That being said, there's certainly nothing wrong with approaching a lawyer's office and seeing what they have to say about it. You might have to talk to a few different firms before you find one that is familiar with situations similar to yours. Then let them decide if it makes sense to move forward or not. To some people maybe it's mostly about the money, but to others it's more about pushing lazy bureaucracies to educate their employees on what makes for an acceptable joke and what makes for an unacceptable attack on their passengers. If some stranger randomly and suddenly accused me of being some sort of terrorist out of the blue I would not be happy about that, joking or not. If I were indirectly paying the salary of my clueless harasser through by conducting business with their employer I'd be pissed. On the other hand if another employee had immediately corrected and/or apologized for their ignorant coworker's remarks I would not be as motivated about the necessity for initiating legal consequences. That's where Amtrak presumably failed in my view. Nobody can completely prevent stupid remarks in a company of Amtrak's size, but they can absolutely foster an environment where coworkers are willing and able to correct mistakes before they become public relations problems of this magnitude.

I've actually contributed to many larger legal causes, most of which involved lawsuits that never requested (and never resulted in) any monetary settlement beyond documented legal fees.

Personally I've only been directly involved in a handful of legally actionable events.

In all cases I decided against taking action.

In most cases this was due to three simple facts...

1. Many people who flout the law have little or nothing to lose that is of any specific value to them.

2. Our legal system has surprising difficulty punishing those who are directly responsible.

3. Even when the right person or entity is punished for the right reasons the benefit of continuing to flout the law often outweighs the repercussions.

On the other hand, as blind and helpless as our legal system can be, it's still better than what many countries provide for those who have been the target or victim of crime or abuse. Making use of our justice system is still dependent upon our needs and abilities, and nothing is ever guaranteed in the legal realm, but that's still far better than having nothing at all.
 
I've seen exactly what CJ described in coach on the Palmetto and Carolinian--the front half of the car blocked off, with tray tables down, with a "reserved" sign for groups of 2 and families. Business class, I'm not sure what the protocol is.
 
Texas Sunset said:
If some stranger randomly and suddenly accused me of being some sort of terrorist out of the blue I would not be happy about that, joking or not. If I were indirectly paying the salary of my clueless harasser through by conducting business with their employer I'd be pissed. On the other hand if another employee had immediately corrected and/or apologized for their ignorant coworker's remarks I would not be as motivated about the necessity for initiating legal consequences. That's where Amtrak presumably failed in my view. Nobody can completely prevent stupid remarks in a company of Amtrak's size, but they can absolutely foster an environment where coworkers are willing and able to correct mistakes before they become public relations problems of this magnitude.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with your assessment. I did not think of going for lawsuit etc because 1) I did not know the name of the offending person, 2) I did not feel it would be a good use of time of the already overburdened judiciary that has more serious issues to deal with.

That being said, I did write to Amtrak after my trip explaining exactly what happened and after two weeks received a standard template email response from them saying "we are dealing with heavy mail volumes due to holiday season but we will look into the matter and respond to you soon". Now here is where Amtrak failed in my opinion. More than a year has passed since I sent that mail, but the "soon" never happened. I don't care whether they found my complaint genuine or pointless, when they said they will get back to me, I expect to hear something concrete.
 
Shanghai said:
I have been asked to move to another seat to accommodate a family on trains &

airplanes and have always been happy to do so. Nearly every time, the attendant

asked in a nice manner and usually, the family was within my sight. I always felt

that someday, i would be the one traveling with my family!!
Click to expand...
I have to agree.

And the attendant or conductor doesn't need to ask every passenger who is traveling alone to please move. They just need to ask enough (in this case just one) to accommodate the expected families (in this case just one family).

I work with a black person who is just like this, with a racial chip on his shoulder. He has HR on speed dial. Say anything to him that he doesn't like, and he reads black-hatred into it.
 
Funny, I used to work with lots of white people who had racial chips on their shoulders. We all know people who will take offense at the smallest perceived slight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guest said:
I work with a black person who is just like this, with a racial chip on his shoulder. He has HR on speed dial. Say anything to him that he doesn't like, and he reads black-hatred into it.
Click to expand...
Oh good, glad we've established this part of it. It makes it much easier to blame the passenger.
 
Steve4031 said:
Amtrak's seating policy needs to be consistent. Each passenger is entitled to a seat. Who gets what seat is normally based on first come first served in bc. That conductor absolutely had no business asking anybody to move for someone getting on later. He had no business saving seats either. If he had minded his own business he and Amtrak wouldn't be in this mess.
Click to expand...
He or she is the conductor. It's his or her train. They can do what they want with it. They want to put seats on hold for a family. They can do it. The complainant and the family both got on at Richmond the family got on maybe a minute or two later is my guess. The conductor must have had knowledge of the family boarding from a Red Cap or Station Worker or even better his scanner with the manifest. In this case this could have been handled a whole other way if what is said is true.
 
Maine Rider said:
Guest said:
I work with a black person who is just like this, with a racial chip on his shoulder. He has HR on speed dial. Say anything to him that he doesn't like, and he reads black-hatred into it.
Click to expand...
Oh good, glad we've established this part of it. It makes it much easier to blame the passenger.
Click to expand...
It makes it easier to simply blame Amtrak employee instead for no other reason than they were white? There are probably a dozen reasons why the Amtrak employee picked to ask the black woman to please move, none of which has to do with her being black. I like to focus on those non-racial reasons; be these reasons wise or inappropriate.

If the Amtrak employee asked a white person to please move, even if they shouldn't, it would not have had this racial spin. Its the fact that a black person who adds the racial spin to something that might have not been correct to ask of anyone, which is what bothers me.
 
I find it hard to believe that discrimation against black people happens on an Amtrak train. On all the trains that I have traveled on the onboard crew has been at least half black. It would surpise me if any conductor on an Amtrak train would discriminate with someone because of his/her color. What is gained by doing this and why would someone even try something so stupid? You couldn't get away with it, you'd be fired in a heartbeat. .
 
The kicker in this is the white woman that was sitting next to this lady and was reportedly NOT asked to move. If that is indeed the case, then there is a definite problem and Amtrak will end up paying.
 
jsreeves said:
The kicker in this is the white woman that was sitting next to this lady and was reportedly NOT asked to move. If that is indeed the case, then there is a definite problem and Amtrak will end up paying.
Click to expand...
What's the penalty if you steal someone's avitar? :)
 
Guest said:
And the attendant or conductor doesn't need to ask every passenger who is traveling alone to please move. They just need to ask enough (in this case just one) to accommodate the expected families (in this case just one family).
Click to expand...
Actually, he would have asked two people to move, since there was a pair of people sitting in those seats:

According to her complaint, shortly after she boarded the Richmond train and settled into her seat, conductor Donald Prince told her to move as he walked by. She stayed put.

A few minutes later Vicky Kadans, who is white, asked McMillan if she could sit next to her. McMillan slid over to the window seat to make room.

Prince soon returned, "and in a loud and intimidating voice," again ordered McMillan to move, explaining that two people who wanted to sit together were boarding the train. The complaint notes that Prince did not tell the white passenger to move, and he threatened to put McMillan off the train.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make it look too good for this conductor...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top