Nasty sexual assault lawsuit against Westjet

[blues deville]

9 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

So then, it'll probably be about 10 years before we have definitive answers to the outstanding questions.

Unfortunately you're probably correct. 

News media are saying both employees involved in the incident were removed from duty. I thought the FA was reported to be fired, which I guess is the ultimate removal.

[blues deville]

Now eight possible victims?

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/another-westjet-flight-attendant-alleges-sexual-abuse-by-a-pilot-1.2804896

[DEFCON]

Someone is going to end up doing a Monty Python styled skit on the oversexed pilots of WJ.

[Airband]

1 hour ago, blues deville said:

Unfortunately you're probably correct. 

News media are saying both employees involved in the incident were removed from duty. I thought the FA was reported to be fired, which I guess is the ultimate removal.

Believe it's the FA from the 2008 incident.

[dagger]

The PR problem now is that this is becoming a regular story, with new people coming forward, new allegations, and the picture developing is no longer just  question of one pilot and one flight attendant, but a systemic problem: Did Westjet create and maintain an environment where a few rogue individuals could act like predators and the worst punishment they would receive was to be separated at work from their prey? 

If that's what forms in the public mind, it will do discernible damage to the Westjet brand and the willingness of some people to fly Westjet - some group and convention business will be the first to go, many organizations have codes of conduct they expect to be upheld. God forbid if it starts looking like Westjet actually protected predator pilots. That will hurt a lot in the pocketbook. This is, after all, 2016.

I don't think Greg's response was right. The airline has a Tylenol problem, and needs to double down on re-assuring the staff and public that this doesn't happen any more because it can't happen any more - the safeguards and deterrents in place are robust. Eight alleged victims sounds less like a lawsuit by a single FA and more like a systemic issue.

[MD2]

10 minutes ago, dagger said:

The PR problem now is that this is becoming a regular story, with new people coming forward, new allegations, and the picture developing is no longer just  question of one pilot and one flight attendant, but a systemic problem: Did Westjet create and maintain an environment where a few rogue individuals could act like predators and the worst punishment they would receive was to be separated at work from their prey? 

If that's what forms in the public mind, it will do discernible damage to the Westjet brand and the willingness of some people to fly Westjet - some group and convention business will be the first to go, many organizations have codes of conduct they expect to be upheld. God forbid if it starts looking like Westjet actually protected predator pilots. That will hurt a lot in the pocketbook. This is, after all, 2016.

I don't think Greg's response was right. The airline has a Tylenol problem, and needs to double down on re-assuring the staff and public that this doesn't happen any more because it can't happen any more - the safeguards and deterrents in place are robust. Eight alleged victims sounds less like a lawsuit by a single FA and more like a systemic issue.

Wow!!

[Seeker]

The issue now is that every employee that feels they were ever wronged by the company will be tempted to try to hang their hat on this train before it leaves the station (how's that for a mixed metaphor?).  In every company, yes, even Westjet, there will be a few who are looking to get out with whatever they can get if the opportunity arises.  Along with this there will some who will try to turn it to their advantage - hence the suggestion that union sentiment drove the outcome in some cases.  Of course there may be some who have a legitimate claim but how do you separate the wheat from the chaff?  Westjet's culture of standing together and pointing the guns outward will not help.

[Vsplat]

Seeker, your predictions will likely come true. 

But let's set the context a bit on the whole 'pile-on' thing.    WestJet is not a pioneer on this battlefield.  While the actual degree of truth in this case is yet to be tested (we simply don't know the story), the sad fact is that Canadian culture loathes success.  It's not that we don't want to be personally successful, we just hate it when someone else is.

The surest way to get hauled up on a claim, valid or synthetic, is to succeed in your market.   You may simply become a big organization and statistics will introduce a bad apple into your barrel, who gets your brand in trouble, or someone will decide they want access to your wealth without earning it.  It's the lesser known corollary of physics.  For every success, there will be an equal and opposite reaction....

Vs

[Seeker]

3 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

But let's set the context a bit on the whole 'pile-on' thing.    WestJet is not a pioneer on this battlefield.  While the actual degree of truth in this case is yet to be tested (we simply don't know the story), the sad fact is that Canadian culture loathes success.  It's not that we don't want to be personally successful, we just hate it when someone else is.

The surest way to get hauled up on a claim, valid or synthetic, is to succeed in your market.   You may simply become a big organization and statistics will introduce a bad apple into your barrel, who gets your brand in trouble, or someone will decide they want access to your wealth without earning it.  It's the lesser known corollary of physics.  For every success, there will be an equal and opposite reaction....

Vs

You make it sound like this is an external threat - it's not. 

[Johnny]

The Social Media Psyco's running off at the mouth screaming "Rape" are doing little to help their own cause.  Which we all champion, zero tolerance for any sort of Sexual ( or any ) Assault.  We've all seen the history of looking for a cash cow, EMB Flight Deck Porn-gate comes to mind.   One individual walking away, laughing all the way to the bank.

Set your stop watch for how soon another case comes to light,  (possibly) involving another Low Cost Carrier.  Nothing like a little Golden Handshake on your way out the door.

So far, I am siding with WestJet on this one.  No need for a Harvard MBA to know that there is no upside to protecting a guilty employee, if there was one ounce of credible evidence.

 

 

[Guest]

Sad to see the "cool aid" turning into "bitter lemon aid" but with constant growth comes an inevitable disconnect with a number of staff members..

 

I see that a thread on the same subject on another forum has been removed for moderator review due to complaints, I guess we have a higher tolerance.

[Vsplat]

Seeker, this is absolutely an external threat now.  I think that was the significant change when the complainant went public. 

The court of social media is now in session.  Whether or not it is fair, or even accurate, is moot. The brand is going to be under some pressure until things are resolved.  The more definitive the resolution the better, but as others have already said better than I, it may take a while and ultimately be ineffective at setting the record completely straight.

 

Vs

 

[J.O.]

On ‎2016‎-‎03‎-‎06 at 10:44 AM, Vsplat said:

A very loyal response J.O. 

Understand that a case like this is not about one man and his vision.  A CEO of a publicly held corporation, no matter where on the planet they are or what their personal level of engagement might be, is an employee and follows orders.  The job is to speak for the corporation and the corporation will either be consulted and agree on the message or they will find a new messenger. 

But we can leave it there, agreeing to disagree if you wish. I am not disagreeing with your assessment of the individual.  You know him, I do not.  My comments go to the role.

Vs

I guess I should have been clearer. There is no loyalty to be had, I don't work for him and never have. I was there in an official (call it auditing) capacity.

You talk like CEOs are spit out of a factory, all of them robots who daren't speak their mind or have an independent thought. While that may sometimes be true, it's not always the case. We may as well say that since some pilots have been known to stray on layovers, they all just have to be disloyal to their spouses. A pretty unfair assessment in my mind.

I am paid to read the tea leaves including assessing the believability and sincerity of a persons responses to questions. I can spot a well-briefed talking head who has too many other things on his plate from a mile away. The simple fact is that he knows his stuff about all aspects of the company, especially when it comes to safety-related matters. Some may even disparagingly call him a control freak. I'd call it focused and driven.

[rudder]

47 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

Seeker, this is absolutely an external threat now.  I think that was the significant change when the complainant went public. 

The court of social media is now in session.  Whether or not it is fair, or even accurate, is moot. The brand is going to be under some pressure until things are resolved.  The more definitive the resolution the better, but as others have already said better than I, it may take a while and ultimately be ineffective at setting the record completely straight.

 

Vs

 

An employee who alleged a sexual assault by another employee while on company time ends up terminated. Now, other company employees from the same job classification are alleging similar occurrences which - if proven - are at best case sexual harassment (per the Labour Code) and at worst case sexual assault (per the Criminal Code).

Even kids entering university get comprehensive lectures on Code of Conduct specifically encompassing permissible interpersonal behaviour and explicit consent required when any form of physical or sexual contact is involved.

WJ appears to have treated these reports as if they were 'bad dates' between employees who now should not be permitted to work together. You are wrong - this is clearly an internal problem at WJ.

 

[Newman]

On 2016-03-06 at 8:06 AM, chockalicious said:

Interested to see who did in 2010. There is no way People Dept handles it now with all of the scrutiny.

Cam was EVP Ops in 2010. I would be shocked and personally disappointed if he knew about this. He is a solid guy and would have done the right thing.

I think some people lost their way on this and focused on protecting WS instead of doing what is right. There is more ugliness to come and not just from Flight Ops.

Cam didn't start at WS until 2011.  From what I recall, the EVP timeline was as follows...

• Gregg Saretsky / EVP Ops - Oct 2009-Apr 2010
• Gregg Saretsky / President & EVP Ops - Apr 2010-Feb 2011
• Cam Kenyon / EVP Ops - Feb 2011-July 2013

Regardless of what happens regarding this and the now mounting list of related cases, there will certainly be a lot of scrutiny on what the "old days" at WestJet were like.  Much has changed in the last 5-7 years, but anyone who attended a WestJet Christmas party circa 1996-2008 (or heard about it the Monday after) knew about all the unabashed and sometimes public co-mingling of staff (particularly flight crew staff).

[UpperDeck]

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

The Social Media Psyco's running off at the mouth screaming "Rape" are doing little to help their own cause.  Which we all champion, zero tolerance for any sort of Sexual ( or any ) Assault.  We've all seen the history of looking for a cash cow, EMB Flight Deck Porn-gate comes to mind.   One individual walking away, laughing all the way to the bank.

Set your stop watch for how soon another case comes to light,  (possibly) involving another Low Cost Carrier.  Nothing like a little Golden Handshake on your way out the door.

So far, I am siding with WestJet on this one.  No need for a Harvard MBA to know that there is no upside to protecting a guilty employee, if there was one ounce of credible evidence.

 

 

Read that again...."...zero tolerance for any sort of sexual (or any) assault..."

That is the "right" thing to say but the rest of the post belies the sincerity methinks. Consider that the most recent "complainant" continues her employment and reports that in response to her complaint, Westjet did NOT display zero tolerance; it simply scheduled the FA so that she wasn't paired with that pilot. In my opinion, zero tolerance required that pilot be removed from the line until a full and satisfactory investigation was completed.

Compare the recent complaint with those already disclosed. There is a discernible "pattern of conduct" in the alleged response of the employer to complaints of gross misconduct. That becomes "similar fact" evidence to the extent that it negatives any suggestion of "mistake". One "mistake"....okay...but eight and it becomes clear that sweeping the issue under the rug is a policy.

And I am concerned that the "bigger picture" is being ignored. Is it possible that there is a "culture" that conveys to pilots that they are somehow "special" and above reproach and for a few.....fortunately only a few....that is construed into a carte blanche for all manner of inappropriate behaviour? 

The same thing happens with politicians, athletes, actors....those placed on a pedestal (sometimes by their own hand) who begin to believe the hype and consider themselves above the rules.

[Vsplat]

1 hour ago, J.O. said:

. We may as well say that since some pilots have been known to stray on layovers, they all just have to be disloyal to their spouses. A pretty unfair assessment in my mind.

 

Hmmm.  J.O. there's a lot of extrapolation between my statements and your statement about my statements.

I agree the assessment you are offering is unfair, but to be clear, that is your statement and not mine, nor is it related to my discussion about CEOs. 

Nor can I draw a parallel between your robot comment and my comments about the advisory capacity that surrounds CEOs.    I am simply saying that CEOs have obligations to consult and follow good advice.  Feel free to disagree, but at least do me the courtesy of disagreeing with what I actually said.

Vs

[Guest]

Latest press coverage complete with a video:

WestJet's handling of sex assault claim left employees vulnerable, says fired flight attendant

Mandalena Lewis alleges she was sexually assaulted by a pilot while on a layover in Hawaii in 2010

By Ioanna Roumeliotis, CBC News Posted: Mar 07, 2016 6:24 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 07, 2016 6:38 PM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/westjet-sex-assault-interview-1.3479550?cmp=rss

 

 

External Links

• Statement from WestJet CEO Gregg Saretsky

(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)

The feelings never left her: fear, anger, betrayal. Mandalena (Mandy) Lewis says it's been an emotional roller coaster since she reported being sexually assaulted six years ago, and especially since she learned she might not be the only former WestJet flight attendant to have made such allegations.

'They failed their flight attendants. They failed to protect us.'- Mandalena Lewis, former WestJet flight attendant

"I'm just disappointed," she said in an interview with CBC News in Vancouver. "They failed their employees. They failed their flight attendants. They failed to protect us."

Lewis is suing her former employer, claiming that after she reported that she was sexually assaulted by a pilot on a layover in Hawaii in 2010, WestJet Airlines did not properly investigate the allegation and chose to protect the pilot and eventually fired her for pursuing the matter.

• WestJet sexual assault lawsuit filed by ex-flight attendant
• Sexual assault allegations spark calls for WestJet CEO's resignation
• WestJet sex assault allegations addressed by CEO

"It was hell," she said in her first television interview. "It was real hell what I went through [to] try to seek justice and follow protocol on how to deal with this stuff."

'I was petrified'

Lewis claims she was assaulted during a Jan. 24, 2010, layover at the Makena Beach Resort in Maui. She says she accepted an invitation from the captain of her Vancouver-Maui flight to have drinks on the balcony of his hotel room. While she was there, he suddenly grabbed her and dragged her onto the bed and began groping her genitals, Lewis alleges.

"So, when we were at this point, of him on top of me on the bed and me screaming, him kissing my neck, my whole face being squished into the side of the bedding, I just ended up getting my feet under him, my heels, and I kicked, and then he fell backwards into the TV stand. I then got up and left," she said.

She has identified the pilot only as "Pilot M."

'I was petrified. It's a moment where you realize how you think you fit in this world is not true.'- Mandalena Lewis

"I was petrified," Lewis said. "It's a moment where you realize how you think you fit in this world is not true … that someone can treat you like you are a thing, like you're just a thing."

Upon returning to Vancouver, her home base, Lewis reported the alleged assault to her managers and to the RCMP, who contacted police in Maui. The U.S. federal prosecutor in Maui laid charges, but Lewis said she was told the pilot can only be arrested if he returns to the island.

Mandalena Lewis is suing her former employer, WestJet for failing to adequately investigate her allegation that she was sexually assaulted by one of the airline's pilots while on a layover in Hawaii in 2010. (Ioanna Roumeliotis/CBC)

CBC news has confirmed there are charges pending against the pilot but could not verify the exact charges.

None of the allegations contained in the lawsuit have been proven in court.

Lewis said that when she reported the alleged assault, she thought the pilot would be fired and that the company would alert other employees and review its sexual assault policies.

"I thought this was going to go completely different," she said.

Pilot, flight attendant grounded

Lewis's civil claim, filed in B.C. Supreme Court last week, alleges that WestJet failed to adequately investigate or respond to her initial report.

WestJet CEO Gregg Saretsky said in a statement released last week that "investigations did take place on these matters, and they were subsequently closed."

'We are reviewing the investigations to ensure they were diligently carried out.'-Gregg Saretsky, WestJet CEO

"We are reviewing the investigations to ensure they were diligently carried out and no new information has come to light since the investigations were undertaken six years ago," he said in a statement posted on the company's blog.

A pilot and another flight attendant named in the lawsuit have been removed from active flying duty, but a WestJet spokesperson refused to say when the decision to ground the two staff members was made.

In his blog post, Saretsky said the decision to ground the two was made "out of concern for their well-being and the continued safe operation of the airline."

WestJet CEO Gregg Saretsky said the airline is reviewing the investigations into Lewis's case 'to ensure they were diligently carried out.' (Larry MacDougal/Canadian Press)

The Calgary-based airline also issued a statement last week stressing that it is committed to "maintaining a safe and harassment-free environment for its employees and guests and takes its obligation in this respect with the utmost seriousness."

On Monday, it reiterated that it is taking the allegations "extremely seriously."

"We are offering additional support and resources to make it as easy as possible for anyone affected to make a report by working with the police in Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver and encouraging employees to contact these or their local police departments," said WestJet spokeswoman Lauren Stewart in an email to CBC News.

Told to keep quiet

Lewis alleges in her lawsuit that the airline's only response to her allegation was to change her work schedule so that she did not have to work with the pilot.

She says the airline told her to keep quiet about her allegations out of respect for the pilot's privacy and told her the pilot was no longer allowed to fly to Hawaii — a move that Lewis says protects him from prosecution.

"They just said, 'We're really sorry. We don't have the capability to fire him. It's your word against him. We're really sorry, and we are going to try to deal with this the best way we can,'" Lewsi said.

The airline is expected to file a statement of defence later this month. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

 

Lewis's fight might have ended there, but then last year, another flight attendant who had heard her pose a question about sexual harassment during a staff training session reached out to her and alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by the same pilot in 2008.

"I thought my incident was more or less isolated," Lewis said. "Once she told me this information, I knew right then and there … what they had told me was a lie. All of the emails and the fights that I was having with them about how they had dealt with my incident was just a lie.

"They didn't handle it at all. They kept telling me, 'Well, it was my word against his.' Well, you have another word from another woman, at the very least."

Lewis said she demanded to see her employment record to determine whether WestJet took any action following her complaint. In January, after three months passed without a response, Lewis sent an email to the company, which contained a swear word, asking for her record. She was fired later that same day for insubordination.

WestJet plans to file a statement of defence in the next few weeks. The company says it has not heard of any other complaints since Lewis filed her suit.

But CBC News has learned that seven other women have reported similar accounts of sexual assault, some involving the same pilot, to the WestJet Professional Flight Attendants Association, an employee organization that has been working to unionize flight attendants at the airline. 

[DEFCON]

To my mind this gal's lawyer is making an effort to litigate the matter in the media. Knowing very well that WJ will be sensitive to negative publicity, the plaintiff's lawyer may be hoping WJ will cave if enough pressure is generated?

Has anyone determined if an actual charge was laid in Hawaii? I have difficulty accepting CTV's version of events?

I'm waiting to see if WJ will file a motion seeking summary judgement dismissal.

 

[J.O.]

8 hours ago, Vsplat said:

Hmmm.  J.O. there's a lot of extrapolation between my statements and your statement about my statements.

I agree the assessment you are offering is unfair, but to be clear, that is your statement and not mine, nor is it related to my discussion about CEOs. 

Nor can I draw a parallel between your robot comment and my comments about the advisory capacity that surrounds CEOs.    I am simply saying that CEOs have obligations to consult and follow good advice.  Feel free to disagree, but at least do me the courtesy of disagreeing with what I actually said.

Vs

Since I see your assertion about the role of CEOs to be as absurd as you see the analogy I used, I think you just agreed with me. Therefore I did disagree with what you said. 

IAC, I've said all I need to. At the end of the day, it's just opinion and won't matter a lick when the dust finally settles on this unfortunate file.

[Vsplat]

12 minutes ago, J.O. said:

Since I see your assertion about the role of CEOs to be as absurd as you see the analogy I used, I think you just agreed with me. Therefore I did disagree with what you said. 

IAC, I've said all I need to. At the end of the day, it's just opinion and won't matter a lick when the dust finally settles on this unfortunate file.

Bizarre, but as you seem locked on applying your unique interpretations to my posts and then drawing conclusions, I certainly agree that there is no point saying anything further.

Vs

[rudder]

Lead story on CBC National news. 5 minutes long.

Great PR WJ. Do you even have a clue how deep a hole that you are digging? Keep up the good work Gregg.

[mo32a]

Anyone that doesn't believe the same behaviour has taken place in every major, or for that matter minor airline, is deceiving themselves.

Christmas parties at lots of companies no longer exist because of the problems that occurred.

I wouldn't be jumping too hard on WJ right now, I can see the same thing happening anywhere, Rouge would be my first guess as to the next litigants.

It doesn't matter what the corporate culture is, you mix men and women, away from home, alcohol, and perhaps youth and you will have the same situation, maybe even it is consensual at first, and maybe nobody says anything the first time or two, but when they see something like this in the news, well it's off to the lawyer.

 

[dagger]

1 hour ago, rudder said:

Lead story on CBC National news. 5 minutes long.

Great PR WJ. Do you even have a clue how deep a hole that you are digging? Keep up the good work Gregg.

You can see the attitudinal divide here - some arguing about the plaintiff and Pilot M and how "stuff happens" so let's not make it a big deal, others grasping that this is more about process now. The outcome of a trial is almost irrelevant. The issue has become Westjet's handling of a systemic problem - and if Pilot M was involved in more than two cases, and continued to fly for the airline almost to this day, and was shielded in this respect by executives of the company, there is a very good chance this ends up becoming the biggest crisis in the airline's history, bigger than spying on Air Canada, with much worse economic consequences.

I've a called this a Tylenol-like PR nightmare, and the only way to address it is to admit there was/is a problem and do whatever is necessary to convince people the airline has put this behind it. But it wont be easy if Pilot M was flying until a few days ago.

Ultimately, the airline may have to bring in an outside expert or firm to audit its practices and compliances with the law. 

But it had better do it soon, or the chairman is going to get a call from the Transport Minister telling him what action to take.

 

[dagger]

1 hour ago, mo32a said:

Anyone that doesn't believe the same behaviour has taken place in every major, or for that matter minor airline, is deceiving themselves.

Christmas parties at lots of companies no longer exist because of the problems that occurred.

I wouldn't be jumping too hard on WJ right now, I can see the same thing happening anywhere, Rouge would be my first guess as to the next litigants.

It doesn't matter what the corporate culture is, you mix men and women, away from home, alcohol, and perhaps youth and you will have the same situation, maybe even it is consensual at first, and maybe nobody says anything the first time or two, but when they see something like this in the news, well it's off to the lawyer.

 

I'm sure people engage in sexual activity. It's as old as the human race and why we are here. And airline pilots and FAs? Well, a lot of FAs marry pilots, so yes, there is fraternizing. I submit to you that every company has office parties, every company has men and women from the same office, maybe the same department, meeting in the bar down the street. And bosses exert power over employees which can lead to a nasty workplace environment, not only for the predator and victim, but for all of their co-workers who know what is going on, and are angry or resentful of the central characters - I've seen the latter first hand.

In the Westjet case, the issue is one of fact- did the event occur as alleged. It's about consent (or lack thereof) by the individuals and compliance with the company's policy and the law. The nub of the Westjet issue are these questions:

 

1. What did the airline know about any of the victims, whether we are talking about one, two or nine?

2. When did it know?

3. How thorough and professional was the investigation or investigations?

4. Was evidence withheld from police?

5. Was remedial action required, and was it taken, and if remedial action was taken was it commensurate with the circumstances of the case (.i.e did it fit the 'crime'?

6. Were individuals in this case treated fairly, was dismissal justified for the plaintiff? Was Pilot M shielded from having to face the consequences of his actions?

7. Are Westjet's sexual harassment rules and complaints procedures robust, and are they applied diligently?

8. How high up the food chain did plaintiff complaint go? (I'd be subpoenaing every email the relevant officials ever sent or received going back to 2008)

9. Does Westjet have more to hide than the information in the public domain as of tonight?

And one more thing: Gregg's stock in trade is his swagger. Whereas someone like Calin almost never utters the word WestJet, Gregg always seem to be trying to stick it to Air Canada in his public declarations. It's very American-style.

Well, from my experience, sometimes guys who think they have oversize balls aren't the sensitive types who can empathize with people who tend not to be his or her sheeple followers. People with too much swagger often have narcissistic tendencies that blind them to some things around them - call it selective vision.