An interesting article in Ad Age speculates as to why JetBlue has been strangely silent over the whole Steve Slater (the drop a few F-bombs, take a bottle of beer or two, and slide off the inflatable slide @ JFK guy - in other words, a folk hero!) incident.

Slater has spawned a slew of websites and activity on the internet and elsewhere (Facebook pages, legal defense funds, Today Show appearances, etc.).  Yet JetBlue has said nothing or virtually nothing about this.  Ad Age asked around and JetBlue declined to comment.  The answer may lie in JetBlue's legal department:

While Mr. Slater's actions have been overwhelmingly met with cheers from the public, the legal ramifications of his behavior are numerous. "People are laughing in support of this guy, but as much as they would like to keep that humor about it, they have to worry about lawsuits," said Michael J. McSunas, a lawyer with Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel, P.C.

Mr. McSunas said that if JetBlue is observed to be taking the matter lightly on Twitter or in discussions with the media, it could be used against the company by Mr. Slater or the Federal Aviation Authority. "He can say the company's position was that it wasn't a serious issue. ... The FAA could say this is a major breach and you're not taking it seriously and are making light of it." It's possible that passengers on the flight could bring legal action too.

"I guess they could say they suffered emotional trauma. Whether they'd be successful or not is a different story," said Mr. McSunas. "I would advise a client to not necessarily address the matter on Twitter or Facebook, but if people are posting about it, respond with something like, 'Joking aside, this is a serious issue, and our passengers safety and security is the number one priority for us.'"

1.  You don't have to be an employment law whiz to see that Slater probably doesn't have colorable claims against JetBlue based on this incident (assuming it doesn't say anything defamatory or otherwise get into trouble based on after-the-fact statements or disclosures) and any claims Slater has will probably be more than offset by JetBlue's on claims against him.  (Unless JetBlue does something really crazy, I can't see Slater wanting to sue it anyway.)  I guess passengers may try to assert claims, but how useful will JetBlue's after-the-fact reaction be to the passengers' legal claims?

2.  I think any response from JetBlue should be thought out, but I wonder if humor is an effective vehicle here.  Are courts hip enough to online conversations to realize when something is said for humorous effect and not intended to be taken seriously?