Diaz Vs Pan Am Summary

Throughout Tiemeyer's talk, I was interested in the content as a whole but found Pan Am's side of the Diaz v Pan Am case to be especially capturing. Pan Am claimed that men could not be serviced by men, and paid a famous psychologist to testify for these claims. Eric Berne discussed possible aspects of men not being able to service other men, which included anxiety, maternal instincts, and physical contact, though no experimental studies or data was created as evidence for these claims. Though the district court favored Pan Am, the court of appeals favored Diaz, and with a denial of Pan Am's appeal to the Supreme Court, the BFOQ clause was invalidated from Title VII. This case became precedent for future gender discrimination cases. Overall, I found this case to be not only …show more content…
I explained how physical contact is not needed for comfort, which makes physical contact invalid as a comforting response needed. If this is ruled out, the only contact that could be established is from handing pillows to passengers and tucking them in after providing blankets. This is ridiculous to me. I realize the planes in the 60s and 70s were cold, so blankets and pillows were consistently provided. But the fact that some grown men needed to be tucked in by female flight attendants is crazy to me. Though it is comforting to be tucked in, it is not necessary to be tucked in to enjoy a blanket, and many people can tuck themselves in without the aide of another person. The homosexual panic is not necessary, because the male passengers did not need to be tucked in, as I am sure a majority of them could do it themselves, so a male flight attendant could provide the necessary amenities. If the issue arising from this argument is that men need to be tucked in by a woman to enjoy their flight, I think there are more issues that needed to be addressed in more urgency than the homosexual