Janet Sinclair used United Airlines’ “PetSafe” service to fly her beloved greyhound Sedona cross-country from San Diego. The service assures flyers that their pets will make the journey safe and sound, with responsible care and personal handling. Sinclair, however, became alarmed when she saw a United employee kick Sedona’s crate six times to shove it under the shade of the plane’s wing instead of carefully moving it. She then began documenting United’s pet care. Her video shows her dog being left outside in 94 degree heat at a mid-journey stop (in Houston), and not placed in a temperature-controlled vehicle as she had been promised. When Sinclair landed at Logan Airport in Boston, her dog was barking at death’s door.
“Sedona’s entire crate was filled with blood, feces, urine,” Sinclair told reporters. “Sedona was in full heat stroke. All of the blankets were filled with blood. She was urinating and defecating blood. She was dying, literally, right in front of me.” The veterinarian who saved Sedona diagnosed her with heat stroke, urinary tract infection and liver dysfunction, all arising from the over-heating the dog experienced during the United Airlines flight. The airline, for its part, claimed that the dog’s distress was due to pre-existing conditions, though Sinclair’s vet had declared Sedona healthy following a pre-trip exam.Eventually the United offered to pay the $2,700 bill for the greyhound to receive three days of treatment in a canine intensive care unit for consequences of heat stroke, with a thick string attached: Sinclair would have to sign a confidentiality agreement, which would prevent her from letting other pet owners know that flying their animal companions on United could be the equivalent of sending them to Club Dead.
She won her Ethics Hero status by refusing the deal. This was a proposed legal settlement in lieu of a lawsuit, and the requirement that the potential plaintiff, in this case Sinclair, promise not to disclose the defendant’s misconduct is unethical. The trial lawyers’ association has long opposed such conditions of settlements as unethical (though it must be the clients’ decision whether or not to accept them) because they allow corporations to continue dangerous practices that add to profits while paying hush money to those who are harmed by them. Nondisclosure conditions make the victim who is harmed a virtual accessory to future harm against others that could be avoided if a corporation would alter its dangerous practices, or if its future consumers were warned of what they might be subjected to.
Luckily for pets and their owners who might have chosen to fly them via “PetSafe,” Sinclair turned down the money and instead decided to disclose with a vengeance. She is giving media interviews, showing her video of how United abused her dog, and has started a a Facebook page, “United Airlines Almost Killed My Greyhound.” United refuses to comment or pay, and is stonewalling, saying only that the airline “is committed to ensuring safe and comfortable travel of all the pets that fly with us and regret that Sedona did not have a good experience. We offered to compensate Ms. Sinclair by fully reimbursing her vet bill, but unfortunately she declined to accept the terms of the agreement.” I guess it’s the dog’s fault that she “did not have a good experience.” She’s so persnickety. Yet NBC reports that by law, “airlines must report whether a pet is hurt, lost or dies on a trip within 45 days of an incident occurring. As of November, the Department of Transportation has no record of Sinclair’s pets’ injuries, even though they were sustained in July.”
How many other unreported incidents might there be, with United paying off pet owners to keep their mouths shut? Fortunately, at least one animal lover cares enough to get the word out and can’t be bought off or muzzled. She has her greyhound, and her integrity too.
______________________________
Facts and Graphic: NBC
Ethics Alarms 
I like how the airline neglects to mention that part of their offer included her never, ever telling anyone about the issue…
Corporations make it so hard to defend the free enterprise system against its enemies when they so often act this way when they misbehave. I know it’s their lawyers, but this kind of thing can’t be justified, and does terrible long-term harm to the entire system’s credibility and trustworthiness.
Agreed.
There is a strong argument, e.g. made by mutualists, that corporations are not part of the free enterprise system at all but rather privileged bodies distorting it.
There’s an argument. I wouldn’t call it strong.
I’d say there is a strong argument that Limited Liability Corporations are privileged bodies distorting the free market. People banding together to succeed in the market is a natural step. It’s the LL that’s the problem with LLCs. Proportional liability would be more ethical in my opinion.
There is an argument. It is not a strong argument. “Proportional liability” sounds good, but is meaningless. And limited liability doesn’t stop corporations from paying billions and billions in damages and settlements, many of which are capitulations to extortion.
But LLCs do prevent a mom and pop store’s owners from becoming utterly destitute and losing everything because someone slips and falls in their store…
Exactly. Or me losing my house because of a nuisance suit against ProEthics or Ethics Alarms. I must say, I regard the attacks on corporations as entities as akin idiocy of those who want us to return to the caves, or to return to an agrarian society. It is ideology untempered by knowledge or rationality.
Have you had the chance to look at the arguments that the mutualists actually present, e.g. the likes of Kevin Carson at http://c4ss.org? What I have seen here so far is denial that there is a strong argument, but not anything that addresses the issues that they raise.
Sorry—debating with anarchists is a waste of my time. I’ve got sock drawers to organize—failed and impossible utopian theories based on conspiracy fantasies and models worked out in a drug haze don’t interest me, and I don’t care to engage with the types of people who embrace them. Jeez—just look at that site! Are you kidding?
Fuck… People like that assclown give libertarians a bad name.
They are the exact reason why we will never win more than a handful of elections, and never for anything useful.
Of all the airlines on the planet, one would think that United would have learned their lessson by now.
Rats! You beat me to it. I decided to post “United Breaks Guitars” as soon as I started reading this one.
However, I can assert from the experience of my partner, Mike Messer, in “Ethics Rock,” “Ethics Rock Extreme” and “Ethics Jamboree,” my musical seminars—OTHER airlines also break guitars.
Especially those guitars NOT in ATA rated flight cases, which was the problem in the “United Breaks Guitars” incident; in fact it was the crux of the issue. That incident raises the question: Is it ethical to demand payment for damaged goods which you failed to adequately protect,(per agreement, granted, it’s boilerplate)? Is it ethical for United to pay for the damages if a cute song goes viral and becomes a PR nightmare, but not in hundreds of other cases? Is the “United Breaks Guitars” guy a whiny idiot for expecting the carrier to pony up, when he failed to pop for a decent (read: expensive) case for his instrument?
I say no, no, and yes.
I would not allow my pet to ride in the cargo hold.
When I brought a cat from Ireland, they allowed me to buy a seat for her @ 95$ US.
Also, here in FL, coming or going, from May to September, no animals at all are carried in cargo.
It’s too hot.