An SC so Epic it took the Supreme Court to bring him down

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Summary:

In 2008, Northwest Airlines (now part of Delta), removed a Minnesota Rabbi from its frequent flier program because of his excessive complaining and badgering reps to get free stuff. The Airline says the man contacted their office 24 times in just over a year regarding travel problems and they have awarded him $1,925.00 in travel credit vouchers, 78,500 WorldPerks bonus miles, a voucher extension for his son, and $491.00 in cash reimbursements.

Following the removal, the man sued the Airline demanding $5 million in damages and immediate reinstatement to the frequent flier program. Several appeals later, the Supreme Court ruled the airline did have the right to effectively "fire" the SC.

For more info: http://consumerist.com/2014/04/03/su...ve-complaints/

[bara]

Personally I'd like to see more 'fired customers' in all business models. At the pizza shop I work at, we are now able to 'fire customers' or set provision when they order. Such as carry-out only or pre-pay with credit or gift card.

Reasons for this could be that the customer is not home, or after the driver gets to the address they try to pay with a check, or they consistently take more than five minutes to answer the door, or they have aggressive dogs and they don't bother restraining them till after the driver is sitting in the driveway.

Reasons for firing them would be consistent fake complaints. There was a house that liked to order one medium pizza and then complain it was burned. When the real reason being that one medium pizza will not feed 8 kids and 2 adults. We started asking for the old pizza back and that has helped, but if the horribly burned inedible pizza is more than 50% gone.. no remake for you and you go on the list.

[s_stabeler]

it should probably be clarified that the rabbi wasn't thrown out of the program due to the frequency of his complaints as such- it was because he demanded compensation over-and-above what the airline was offering everybody else. That, and his demands were batshit insane- by my read, he was demanding that they couldn't kick ANYBODY off of their loyalty card program.

not to mention that the Supreme Court DID say that you CAN sue if you are wrongfully kicked off- all they said, basically, was that this guy was kicked off properly.

[Boozy]

I recently "fired" a customer at my store after repeated complaints and requests for freebies. This person is welcome to shop at the store, but have been delicately told that they shop "at their own risk" - meaning, absolutely everything they purchase is final sale.

We sell mostly fresh food that is consumed shortly after purchase, so most customers who complain aren't attempting a "return" so much as just letting us know that they had some quality concerns. Most of the time, their concerns are treated as valid, and we offer a complete refund PLUS a replacement product. Most of these "complaints" come from long-time customers who I truly believe are only wanting us to be aware of issues before they become major problems. We are a small business, but growing quickly, so this kind of feedback is very welcome.

However, this customer is different. They don't care about the future success of our company. They just want to get as much free shit as possible. It was difficult to convince our ownership to refuse our "refund and replacement" policy in this case, but I managed to do it. The larger we become, the more we are going to attract people who only want to take advantage.

Here's what I basically said to the customer: "You've had many concerns about the quality of the products we sell for the price we ask. The vast majority of our clientele are very happy with the value they receive here, and I'm sorry that you have not found this to be the case. Unfortunately, we cannot please everyone. I think that perhaps this is not the store for you. If you want to purchase anything today, I will not refuse you, but be aware that we fully expect you to be disappointed, despite our best efforts. Consider anything you buy today to be final sale."

The look on her face was priceless. She actually bought everything she had in her cart, but I don't expect to see her again.

[Andara Bledin]

My workplace has never fired a customer, unless you call blocking eBay buyers as doing so. We've got quite a few scammers we've blocked there over the years.

We, do, however keep track of customers who have bullshit RMA requests and will either No Bid certain items or "No Returns Except for Defect" them.

More companies should get rid of the approximately 1% of customers that are just plain batshit crazy and put restrictions on the 1% that are just too stupid to commerce.

[XCashier]

More companies should get rid of the approximately 1% of customers that are just plain batshit crazy and put restrictions on the 1% that are just too stupid to commerce.

Agreed! And when they complain, tell them precisely why they've got the restrictions, pretty much like Boozy did.

I don't know if the fabric store has ever banned customers; I think that's up to the manager's discretion and is probably reserved for the worst of the worst. For example, when my AM took over for me dealing with the Bitch Queen, she later told me that BQ said that she was never shopping here again. AM replied, "Good, please don't!" I don't know if that counts as a banning, but I haven't seen BQ since.

[fireheart17]

Most of the kids we've had to exclude from the service have been excluded for the following reasons:

-Delinquent accounts (ie parent has failed to pay up on childcare services even after the childcare benefit has been lodged)
-Lack of details (We now require all children to have their updated immunisation record OR to bring a letter from their doctor about them being conscientious objectors or that they can't have xyz vaccination for whatever reason)
-Child has been deliberately hurting/injuring others and has no indication of stopping this.
-Child is a safety risk and the site can't accommodate him/her (this applies to school holiday programs more than day-to-day services as a couple of sites are not fenced off to prevent this)
-Child's repeated behaviours cannot be addressed by the staff with the resources they have. (For example, we have one kid we're in the process of excluding for a number of reasons. We can't accommodate his needs entirely in the space we have without disadvantaging the other children or causing a hazard0
-Child has severe special needs and the service is understaffed/does not have an AFW. (We had to exclude one child for this reason)

[catcul]

At a satellite clinic to the hospital I work for, I saw this flier about a man that had a history of assaulting hospital staff. It said that if anyone sees him on hospital property (including satellite clinics), they needed to call the police to escort him off. If he needed health care, he had to have police with him the entire time.