SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - A woman was escorted off of a Delta flight after she was told her clothing was “too revealing.” Now, she’s calling for change.
In January, Lisa Archbold was flying out of Salt Lake City to San Francisco when she was told to get off the plane after everyone was boarded and quiet.
She claims she was told by flight staff that she needed to “cover up” due to her clothing.
“She came to my seat and loudly asked to speak to me in private and escorted me off the plane as though I was a criminal,” Archbold said. “I felt it was a spectacle aimed at punishing me for not being a woman the way she thought I should be a woman.”
Archbold, who identifies as queer, says she was dressed like a little boy in baggy pants and a shirt.
She posted on “X,” formerly known as Twitter, a photo of her outfit.
Archbold says Delta told her it’s their policy that women need to cover up. She was told if she put on a jacket, she could fly. So, Archbold complied.
Now, she and her attorney are calling on the airline to change their policy.
“Delta’s contract of carriage says that Delta may remove a passenger when reasonably necessary for the ‘comfort or safety of passengers.’ For example, when ‘the passengers conduct, attire, hygiene, or odor creates an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance to other passengers,'” said Archbold. “Please explain how wearing a t-shirt without a bra causes ‘an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance.’”
I don’t care what people wear, but everyone is saying she’s in trouble for wearing a T Shirt without a bra as if the mere outline of a nipple was the problem, but it looks like in the picture that her shirt is pretty see through. I think that’s the issue.
Again, I don’t think she should have been kicked off the plane over it, but a see through shirt in Utah? That seems like an unreasonable risk of offense to me. Utah is crazy conservative. Delta isn’t taking a moral stance, they’re just protecting their profits in a Conservative state by enforcing a pretty reasonable dress code. You have to have coverage over your body.
I don’t see where the shirt looks see through. It’s just an off white shirt.
I’m pretty sure it’s a white shirt and the reason it looks off white is because it’s so thin you can see her skin underneath. The color of the shirt is thicker fabric, and you don’t see the skin color underneath.
I think that you probably could have put 99 more t-shirts on her, and not one of them would have invoked this policy, because most t-shirts are not designed to be see through.
I’m not convinced that’s the case honestly. To me the color looks too uniform for it to be caused by her skin underneath. But even if that is the case her nipple is not at all visible. Their justification makes 0 sense to me. This lady is fully clothed. I don’t see how she could possibly cause any kind of danger or disruption.
Fucking Utah.
Their policy isn’t an unreasonable risk of danger or disruption, it’s an unreasonable risk of offense. You’re not allowed to wear clothes that offend other customers. They can kick you off the plane for wearing a shirt that has an image of giving the middle finger or a curse word. You can tell it’s see through because the collar is fully opaque where the fabric is rolled over itself.
Plus it sounds like they gave the woman the option of changing her shirt or adding a jacket and she wasn’t willing to do that