Austistic teen kicked off plane.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, the mother said that her kid might have a meltdown and scratch herself or others. That's a warning of physical violence that the flight crew needs to take seriously.

Frankly, I don't have any problem with the mother asking for hot food from first class, although its not clear whether she offered to pay for it at the time that she asked, rather than after she received it. But whatever, that's not so out of line. But she basically told the flight attendant that her kid was going to have a meltdown and scratch. It's not a "threat" like threatening to intentionally hurt someone, but it's a statement that her kid is prone to violent fits and that she was at risk for having one. Don't tell the flight attendant that your kid is going to hurt themselves or someone else if you don't want them to believe you.

Agreed. There was the potential for violence and the airline had a duty to protect other passengers. At the same time, It must be an incredible challenge for the mother to be put in a position like this. I can't imagine traveling with an autistic child. A little more kindness on the part of the flight attendant and a little more discretion on the part of the mother might have averted this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May you all (ok, lots of you) walk a thousand miles in that mom's shoes before you judge.

People aren't really judging her. Things happen, but the mom could have handled things more tactfully. So could the airline. But bringing it to the media and suing the airline are absurd, and FAR more worthy of "mom-judgment" than the original requests/threats/etc.

+ 1. This will follow the daughter and mom for the rest of their lives. Hiring a lawyer is stupid and looks crass and money-grabbing. Also, we also don't know exactly what the mom said to the flight attendant. But once the word "violence" is used, the pilot had ever right to bring the plane down.

Except it wasn't.

From her account: "I again asked if he could make an exception for our daughter who faces autism. He said, no he could not give her the rice from first class. I asked if I could get some chips or something salty for her. He said they had no chips. Juliette was beginning to cry. Frustrated I said, after she has a melt down and tries to scratch in frustration, will you help her then? He said he would see what he could do. He came back scowled at me and gave her a hot meal. I thanked him and offered to pay for it. He did not answer and went back to First Class.

You're telling me THAT was a reason to land a plane and kick them off??? That's the story, right there. Baffling and ignorant and stupid.

Not the airlines problem. Not the flight attendants problem, not the other passengers problem. Poor planning on the family's part should not make an issue for everyone else. "My daughter who faces autism." Gag. Even the phrasing sounds manipulative.

That is not true. It is the airlines responsibilities to help prevent bad situations. If the parent needed orange juice for diabetes she would have been provided orange juice.

Except orange juice is available to everyone. Not just "special" people. Analogy fail.

Except the ADA is at play. Seriously, 25 years later and you don't know that?

Please link to where the ADA says disabled people have an inalienable right to hot food.

FAA rules for people with disabilities.

....Airlines are required to provide assis­tance with boarding, deplaning and making connections. Assistance within the cabin is also required....

Pretty sure there is also an FAA rule against making threats on a plane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

FALSE! Its incredible what I am reading on this thread. Just incredible.

How is it false? She was in fact denied access to a flight (kicked off). That denial was based on the perception that she might become violent (never happened). The perception was based on the fact that her possible behavior, directly related to her autism, was causing problems. It wasn't. So how is this not an ADA issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

She was given proper accommodation -- yes, grudgingly, but the flight attendant did get her jambalaya which was acceptably got. It's arguable that she was denied access to her flight solely on the fact that she is autistic. Alternatively, she and her family were kicked off the flight for being unruly, disruptive, or otherwise a threat or problem.

It is not reasonable that a proper accommodation was for the airline to provide food. If mom knew food was in first class and she needed the benefits of first class, she should have paid for first class. This is another activist mom looking to get fame through her cause, one of which happens to be via her child. I am so tired of people using their kids for this kind of stuff. Plenty of us fly with kids and adults with disabilities and its been fine. If we know they cannot handle it, you find another way. Many of us have had to do that. We had to move someone cross country and it wasn't safe to fly with them. It was a very difficult trip but we did it.

You wanted her to put her kid in 1st class.

She has flown 20+ states and almost 10 countries, this is the first incident. You are asking for perfection, that is impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May you all (ok, lots of you) walk a thousand miles in that mom's shoes before you judge.

People aren't really judging her. Things happen, but the mom could have handled things more tactfully. So could the airline. But bringing it to the media and suing the airline are absurd, and FAR more worthy of "mom-judgment" than the original requests/threats/etc.

+ 1. This will follow the daughter and mom for the rest of their lives. Hiring a lawyer is stupid and looks crass and money-grabbing. Also, we also don't know exactly what the mom said to the flight attendant. But once the word "violence" is used, the pilot had ever right to bring the plane down.

Except it wasn't.

From her account: "I again asked if he could make an exception for our daughter who faces autism. He said, no he could not give her the rice from first class. I asked if I could get some chips or something salty for her. He said they had no chips. Juliette was beginning to cry. Frustrated I said, after she has a melt down and tries to scratch in frustration, will you help her then? He said he would see what he could do. He came back scowled at me and gave her a hot meal. I thanked him and offered to pay for it. He did not answer and went back to First Class.

You're telling me THAT was a reason to land a plane and kick them off??? That's the story, right there. Baffling and ignorant and stupid.

Not the airlines problem. Not the flight attendants problem, not the other passengers problem. Poor planning on the family's part should not make an issue for everyone else. "My daughter who faces autism." Gag. Even the phrasing sounds manipulative.

That is not true. It is the airlines responsibilities to help prevent bad situations. If the parent needed orange juice for diabetes she would have been provided orange juice.

Except orange juice is available to everyone. Not just "special" people. Analogy fail.

Except the ADA is at play. Seriously, 25 years later and you don't know that?

Please link to where the ADA says disabled people have an inalienable right to hot food.

FAA rules for people with disabilities.

....Airlines are required to provide assis­tance with boarding, deplaning and making connections. Assistance within the cabin is also required....

Pretty sure there is also an FAA rule against making threats on a plane.

Can you link to the FAA rule that says if a mother says their child is going to have a meltdown that the plane will be diverted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

FALSE! Its incredible what I am reading on this thread. Just incredible.

How is it false? She was in fact denied access to a flight (kicked off). That denial was based on the perception that she might become violent (never happened). The perception was based on the fact that her possible behavior, directly related to her autism, was causing problems. It wasn't. So how is this not an ADA issue?

Her being autistic was not the sole reason (banging head against desk, banging head against desk). Its like beating a dead horse and now I have lost too many brain cells at this point. You win! There!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May you all (ok, lots of you) walk a thousand miles in that mom's shoes before you judge.

People aren't really judging her. Things happen, but the mom could have handled things more tactfully. So could the airline. But bringing it to the media and suing the airline are absurd, and FAR more worthy of "mom-judgment" than the original requests/threats/etc.

+ 1. This will follow the daughter and mom for the rest of their lives. Hiring a lawyer is stupid and looks crass and money-grabbing. Also, we also don't know exactly what the mom said to the flight attendant. But once the word "violence" is used, the pilot had ever right to bring the plane down.

Except it wasn't.

From her account: "I again asked if he could make an exception for our daughter who faces autism. He said, no he could not give her the rice from first class. I asked if I could get some chips or something salty for her. He said they had no chips. Juliette was beginning to cry. Frustrated I said, after she has a melt down and tries to scratch in frustration, will you help her then? He said he would see what he could do. He came back scowled at me and gave her a hot meal. I thanked him and offered to pay for it. He did not answer and went back to First Class.

You're telling me THAT was a reason to land a plane and kick them off??? That's the story, right there. Baffling and ignorant and stupid.

Not the airlines problem. Not the flight attendants problem, not the other passengers problem. Poor planning on the family's part should not make an issue for everyone else. "My daughter who faces autism." Gag. Even the phrasing sounds manipulative.

That is not true. It is the airlines responsibilities to help prevent bad situations. If the parent needed orange juice for diabetes she would have been provided orange juice.

Except orange juice is available to everyone. Not just "special" people. Analogy fail.

Except the ADA is at play. Seriously, 25 years later and you don't know that?

Please link to where the ADA says disabled people have an inalienable right to hot food.

FAA rules for people with disabilities.

....Airlines are required to provide assis­tance with boarding, deplaning and making connections. Assistance within the cabin is also required....

Pretty sure there is also an FAA rule against making threats on a plane.

God you are dumb. Yeah, this is equivalent to a bomb threat, or a threat to harm other passengers. There was no threat to harm other passengers or the crew. There was a warning that this girl might escalate if not reasonably accommodated. That's all mom was asking for - a reasonable accommodation that (as people are pointing out) was given. Potential harm THWARTED AND CONTROLLED. But noooooooo, they had to kick her off the plane still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

FALSE! Its incredible what I am reading on this thread. Just incredible.

How is it false? She was in fact denied access to a flight (kicked off). That denial was based on the perception that she might become violent (never happened). The perception was based on the fact that her possible behavior, directly related to her autism, was causing problems. It wasn't. So how is this not an ADA issue?

Her being autistic was not the sole reason (banging head against desk, banging head against desk). Its like beating a dead horse and now I have lost too many brain cells at this point. You win! There!

So what was the reason? And if you say "threats" I'll beat your head against the desk myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May you all (ok, lots of you) walk a thousand miles in that mom's shoes before you judge.

People aren't really judging her. Things happen, but the mom could have handled things more tactfully. So could the airline. But bringing it to the media and suing the airline are absurd, and FAR more worthy of "mom-judgment" than the original requests/threats/etc.

+ 1. This will follow the daughter and mom for the rest of their lives. Hiring a lawyer is stupid and looks crass and money-grabbing. Also, we also don't know exactly what the mom said to the flight attendant. But once the word "violence" is used, the pilot had ever right to bring the plane down.

Except it wasn't.

From her account: "I again asked if he could make an exception for our daughter who faces autism. He said, no he could not give her the rice from first class. I asked if I could get some chips or something salty for her. He said they had no chips. Juliette was beginning to cry. Frustrated I said, after she has a melt down and tries to scratch in frustration, will you help her then? He said he would see what he could do. He came back scowled at me and gave her a hot meal. I thanked him and offered to pay for it. He did not answer and went back to First Class.

You're telling me THAT was a reason to land a plane and kick them off??? That's the story, right there. Baffling and ignorant and stupid.

Not the airlines problem. Not the flight attendants problem, not the other passengers problem. Poor planning on the family's part should not make an issue for everyone else. "My daughter who faces autism." Gag. Even the phrasing sounds manipulative.

That is not true. It is the airlines responsibilities to help prevent bad situations. If the parent needed orange juice for diabetes she would have been provided orange juice.

Except orange juice is available to everyone. Not just "special" people. Analogy fail.

Except the ADA is at play. Seriously, 25 years later and you don't know that?

Please link to where the ADA says disabled people have an inalienable right to hot food.

Airlines in coach do not provide food anymore. Some have a limited supply for sale, but very few. I have a picky eater who does not eat meat. I would not expect sitting in coach for them to serve my child from first class as he refuses anything in coach or our food. I expect him to sit and behave and either eat what we have or wait. If he acts up, he will not get on a plane again. (and yes, we couldn't travel for a few years. It sucked, but that's life). So, if child wanted ice cream, they are supposed to provide it? Or, a specific candy? No, eat what is provided, parents bring food or don't fly. If your child is prone to violent behavior or disruptive behavior and cannot be controlled, the only time it would be ok to fly is to medical appointments or other emergencies.

OMG! You are so clueless. This is why Autism Speak is so important, they really need to educate the public.

Ok. Please educate me. Is any and all bratty behavior by someone with autism excused? Please answer yes or no. What if the girl wanted to sing Let it Go at the top of her lungs the whole flight? Do we have to allow that? Where is the line?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

FALSE! Its incredible what I am reading on this thread. Just incredible.

How is it false? She was in fact denied access to a flight (kicked off). That denial was based on the perception that she might become violent (never happened). The perception was based on the fact that her possible behavior, directly related to her autism, was causing problems. It wasn't. So how is this not an ADA issue?

Her being autistic was not the sole reason (banging head against desk, banging head against desk). Its like beating a dead horse and now I have lost too many brain cells at this point. You win! There!

So what was the reason? And if you say "threats" I'll beat your head against the desk myself.

NP here. Being effing annoying was the reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May you all (ok, lots of you) walk a thousand miles in that mom's shoes before you judge.

People aren't really judging her. Things happen, but the mom could have handled things more tactfully. So could the airline. But bringing it to the media and suing the airline are absurd, and FAR more worthy of "mom-judgment" than the original requests/threats/etc.

+ 1. This will follow the daughter and mom for the rest of their lives. Hiring a lawyer is stupid and looks crass and money-grabbing. Also, we also don't know exactly what the mom said to the flight attendant. But once the word "violence" is used, the pilot had ever right to bring the plane down.

Except it wasn't.

From her account: "I again asked if he could make an exception for our daughter who faces autism. He said, no he could not give her the rice from first class. I asked if I could get some chips or something salty for her. He said they had no chips. Juliette was beginning to cry. Frustrated I said, after she has a melt down and tries to scratch in frustration, will you help her then? He said he would see what he could do. He came back scowled at me and gave her a hot meal. I thanked him and offered to pay for it. He did not answer and went back to First Class.

You're telling me THAT was a reason to land a plane and kick them off??? That's the story, right there. Baffling and ignorant and stupid.

Not the airlines problem. Not the flight attendants problem, not the other passengers problem. Poor planning on the family's part should not make an issue for everyone else. "My daughter who faces autism." Gag. Even the phrasing sounds manipulative.

That is not true. It is the airlines responsibilities to help prevent bad situations. If the parent needed orange juice for diabetes she would have been provided orange juice.

Except orange juice is available to everyone. Not just "special" people. Analogy fail.

Except the ADA is at play. Seriously, 25 years later and you don't know that?

Please link to where the ADA says disabled people have an inalienable right to hot food.

Airlines in coach do not provide food anymore. Some have a limited supply for sale, but very few. I have a picky eater who does not eat meat. I would not expect sitting in coach for them to serve my child from first class as he refuses anything in coach or our food. I expect him to sit and behave and either eat what we have or wait. If he acts up, he will not get on a plane again. (and yes, we couldn't travel for a few years. It sucked, but that's life). So, if child wanted ice cream, they are supposed to provide it? Or, a specific candy? No, eat what is provided, parents bring food or don't fly. If your child is prone to violent behavior or disruptive behavior and cannot be controlled, the only time it would be ok to fly is to medical appointments or other emergencies.

OMG! You are so clueless. This is why Autism Speak is so important, they really need to educate the public.

Ok. Please educate me. Is any and all bratty behavior by someone with autism excused? Please answer yes or no. What if the girl wanted to sing Let it Go at the top of her lungs the whole flight? Do we have to allow that? Where is the line?

NP. You're an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

FALSE! Its incredible what I am reading on this thread. Just incredible.

How is it false? She was in fact denied access to a flight (kicked off). That denial was based on the perception that she might become violent (never happened). The perception was based on the fact that her possible behavior, directly related to her autism, was causing problems. It wasn't. So how is this not an ADA issue?

Her being autistic was not the sole reason (banging head against desk, banging head against desk). Its like beating a dead horse and now I have lost too many brain cells at this point. You win! There!

I don't think you had many to spare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May you all (ok, lots of you) walk a thousand miles in that mom's shoes before you judge.

People aren't really judging her. Things happen, but the mom could have handled things more tactfully. So could the airline. But bringing it to the media and suing the airline are absurd, and FAR more worthy of "mom-judgment" than the original requests/threats/etc.

+ 1. This will follow the daughter and mom for the rest of their lives. Hiring a lawyer is stupid and looks crass and money-grabbing. Also, we also don't know exactly what the mom said to the flight attendant. But once the word "violence" is used, the pilot had ever right to bring the plane down.

Except it wasn't.

From her account: "I again asked if he could make an exception for our daughter who faces autism. He said, no he could not give her the rice from first class. I asked if I could get some chips or something salty for her. He said they had no chips. Juliette was beginning to cry. Frustrated I said, after she has a melt down and tries to scratch in frustration, will you help her then? He said he would see what he could do. He came back scowled at me and gave her a hot meal. I thanked him and offered to pay for it. He did not answer and went back to First Class.

You're telling me THAT was a reason to land a plane and kick them off??? That's the story, right there. Baffling and ignorant and stupid.

Not the airlines problem. Not the flight attendants problem, not the other passengers problem. Poor planning on the family's part should not make an issue for everyone else. "My daughter who faces autism." Gag. Even the phrasing sounds manipulative.

That is not true. It is the airlines responsibilities to help prevent bad situations. If the parent needed orange juice for diabetes she would have been provided orange juice.

Except orange juice is available to everyone. Not just "special" people. Analogy fail.

Except the ADA is at play. Seriously, 25 years later and you don't know that?

Please link to where the ADA says disabled people have an inalienable right to hot food.

Airlines in coach do not provide food anymore. Some have a limited supply for sale, but very few. I have a picky eater who does not eat meat. I would not expect sitting in coach for them to serve my child from first class as he refuses anything in coach or our food. I expect him to sit and behave and either eat what we have or wait. If he acts up, he will not get on a plane again. (and yes, we couldn't travel for a few years. It sucked, but that's life). So, if child wanted ice cream, they are supposed to provide it? Or, a specific candy? No, eat what is provided, parents bring food or don't fly. If your child is prone to violent behavior or disruptive behavior and cannot be controlled, the only time it would be ok to fly is to medical appointments or other emergencies.

OMG! You are so clueless. This is why Autism Speak is so important, they really need to educate the public.

Ok. Please educate me. Is any and all bratty behavior by someone with autism excused? Please answer yes or no. What if the girl wanted to sing Let it Go at the top of her lungs the whole flight? Do we have to allow that? Where is the line?

NP. You're an idiot.

Thanks for answering for me! Heavy sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

FALSE! Its incredible what I am reading on this thread. Just incredible.

How is it false? She was in fact denied access to a flight (kicked off). That denial was based on the perception that she might become violent (never happened). The perception was based on the fact that her possible behavior, directly related to her autism, was causing problems. It wasn't. So how is this not an ADA issue?

Her being autistic was not the sole reason (banging head against desk, banging head against desk). Its like beating a dead horse and now I have lost too many brain cells at this point. You win! There!

I don't think you had many to spare.

These past few posts like yours pp are obviously from a couple very aggressive people. Take a step away from your computer.

[Anonymous]

I think this thread has reached beating a dead horse territory.