Nasty sexual assault lawsuit against Westjet

[Seeker]

Quite the rebuttal from Westjet.  I wonder if the journalist who wrote the initial article is working on her retraction?

[Seeker]

4 minutes ago, FA@AC said:

This group seems to be suggesting that Lewis' pro-union activities had something to do with her termination:

 

http://m.thetyee.ca/News/2016/03/22/WestJet-Firing-Investigation/

Already posted by chockalicious on page 9 of this thread.  Try to keep up will ya -

[FA@AC]

4 minutes ago, seeker said:

Already posted by chockalicious on page 9 of this thread.  Try to keep up will ya -

Oops!  Will do my best

 

 

[Lakelad]

10 hours ago, seeker said:

Quite the rebuttal from Westjet.  I wonder if the journalist who wrote the initial article is working on her retraction?

What  would you see her retracting?

[dagger]

Statements by either side gild the lily, and if this case goes to court, the testimony and cross-examination of witnesses might paint a different picture, one that is more gray than black or white. A legal case is very expensive, so no matter who wins, loses or whether the parties settle out of court, there is usually some substance on which to base a complaint - it's just a matter of whether it rises to the level of culpability. 

[UpperDeck]

Not so much culpability as simple liability but I agree, Dagger. All we are reading is the pleadings....an art form in itself.

 

For example, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff requested her file. In October, a manager leaving on vacation states it will be produced in 30 days. It is around mid-January that the plaintiff asks not so politely; "Where the bleep is my file?".

In its pleading, WJ emphasizes the bleep but doesn't remark upon that unexplained failure to produce the file within the time promised.

Just as an example.

[chockalicious]

Still find it interesting that WS does not say who did the investigation and if the people who did do the investigation were qualified.

[blues deville]

4 minutes ago, chockalicious said:

Still find it interesting that WS does not say who did the investigation and if the people who did do the investigation were qualified.

I believe the CEO did comment briefly in his initial blog but until each side appears in court I don't think anything more needs to be released to the public. However, I think out sourcing an internal review of company policies and procedures says a lot about what is happening or happened at the Calgary HQ. 

[DEFCON]

Paragraphs 5, 22 & 25 seem to be an indication that WJ purposely intends to confuse, or blur the legal authority and responsibility of pilots, specifically the PIC and mix them into some sort of corporately defined social homogeneity when the law makes it abundantly clear that ‘flight crew’ are pilots and FA’s ‘crew’ members. Calling them all inflight crew, or crew is not appropriate imo.

 

There’s also direction indicating the PIC is only so when the ac is ‘in flight’, which is not the case legally, not would anyone expect him / her not to be in command / charge of the full complement of his crew when they report for ‘duty’.

 

Dagger is correct when it comes to ‘gilding the lily’, but in this case I think it’s safe to say we’ve all seen FA’s that follow the model the complainant demonstrates. The record would indicate she was a less than ideal employee.

 

Earlier, Better4me reported that he had done some digging, thank you, and learned that the alleged offence has a two year statutory limitation on it. Although WJ’s explanation of it’s disciplinary action against the pilot does seem reasonable at first blush, the absence of comment regarding the decision / direction Hawaiian authorities took on the file and the timing of ‘Pilot M’s return to international operations is something of a story that invites the provision of further detail.

 

All in all though, the ‘facts’ contained within WJ’s Statement of Defence are nothing short of damning to the complaint’s cause.   

 

All that aside, I added several comments to the mix here over a couple or more weeks that now make it look like I was involved in writing WJ’s Statement of Defence, but yet, there wasn’t a single ‘like’ granted ... I’m devastated ... well, not really.

 

On the rude side, posters such as CP FA routinely jump out and aggressively criticise others like Seeker for instance who from the beginning tried to take and maintain a balanced approach with his comments. In my opinion CP FA ought to be doing a little backtracking, grovelling, or offering apologies to him by now. In practice though it would seem that whenever something contentious comes up involving sex, men & women, she goes on a vitriolic attack against the male side of the equation, but when as is the norm the facts begin to emerge and demonstrate a reality contrary to the one she is advocating for, she disappears from the record. I think her hit & run tactics are quite unfair to many and prematurely damn people, in this case, Pilot M & WJ.

 

[johnny dangerous]

http://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/westjets-injured-reputation-healing-nicely

[chockalicious]

Read all of the respective files that are available and don't see anything that necessarily says here story is false.

It still boils down to a he said/she said.

It seems that some want to take her lousy employment record to mean she has no credibility. I think from everything I have read she is a bit of a flake but that doesn't change what may have happened with respect to the alleged assault. 

WS is saying they did a vigorous investigation and from a personal standpoint I hope that's true, however my concern rests with who did it and how qualified/impartial they were.

 

[moeman]

1 hour ago, johnny dangerous said:

http://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/westjets-injured-reputation-healing-nicely

He lost me here "Also, I despise Air Canada and automatically root for the competition."

[DEFCON]

Choc

I think paragraphs 57 - 60 of the Statement of Defence indicate that WJ undertook a parallel investigation with the Hawaiian authorities. Although the document did not reference the Mounties, as I recall, the Complainant's Statement of Claim mentioned that they had become involved to a degree as well.

Knowing the law from two different jurisdictions were investigating Lewis's complaint, it's hard to imagine WJ would be inclined towards taking shortcuts and other actions intended to protect the alleged perp from the consequences of the crime alleged. 

 

  

 

[Seeker]

1 hour ago, chockalicious said:

It seems that some want to take her lousy employment record to mean she has no credibility. I think from everything I have read she is a bit of a flake but that doesn't change what may have happened with respect to the alleged assault. 

 

That's not really true though is it? A person who is dishonest or irresponsible in one aspect of their life tends to be the same in others aspects.  Not 100 percent of the time, obviously, but if you were going to bet on who's statement, her's or the company's, is more accurate where would you lay your money?  I wouldn't say she has no credibility but it's certainly taken a hit. 

All this with the usual caveats, of course.  Her recounting of what happened may be completely accurate and completely independent of her employment history.  It's even possible, as cp fa suggested, that the poor employment history may have been the result of the assault and it's handling by the company (though some of the events pre-date the date of the alleged assault).

[Lakelad]

30 minutes ago, seeker said:

I wouldn't say she has no credibility but it's certainly taken a hit.

And credibility matters...

Jian Ghomeshi acquitted on all charges in sexual assault trial

Judge says inconsistencies in complainants' stories were key in aquittal of former CBC broadcaster

Thu Mar 24, 2016 - CBC News

Former CBC broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi has been acquitted on four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking.

Judge William Horkins announced his ruling today in the Ontario Court of Justice. The decision follows an eight-day trial held in Toronto at the beginning of February.

After the judge announced his decision, Ghomeshi hugged his mother and sister.

The 48-year-old Ghomeshi had pleaded not guilty to all of the charges, related to three complainants, who alleged incidents occurred in 2002 and 2003.

All of the complainants testified during Ghomeshi's trial.  

In a decision that was scathing of the three complainants, Horkins repeatedly pointed to inconsistences in their stories that he said ultimately undermined their credibility and raised the issue of reasonable doubt. 

Horkins says all he had to go on was the women's credibility, which he said cross-examination showed to be sorely lacking.

The women testified they were being romantic with Ghomeshi when he briefly turned violent in separate incidents in 2002 and 2003.

[DEFCON]

Just think how much the coming suit is going to cost taxpayers. I wonder if Trudeau included that result in his budget? I think they maybe should take whatever Ghomeshi is awarded directly out of the CBC's budget and if it's so much they can no longer operate ... oh well and good riddance. 

[chockalicious]

4 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Choc

I think paragraphs 57 - 60 of the Statement of Defence indicate that WJ undertook a parallel investigation with the Hawaiian authorities. Although the document did not reference the Mounties, as I recall, the Complainant's Statement of Claim mentioned that they had become involved to a degree as well.

Knowing the law from two different jurisdictions were investigating Lewis's complaint, it's hard to imagine WJ would be inclined towards taking shortcuts and other actions intended to protect the alleged perp from the consequences of the crime alleged. 

 

  

 

I don't recall anything referencing the RCMP. My point on this is about the robustness of the investigation and who did it. I would have a hard time believing there was intentional misdirection but I do not think, as I stated when this first happened, that the people who did the investigation may have had the needed skills to do it.

[chockalicious]

2 hours ago, seeker said:

That's not really true though is it? A person who is dishonest or irresponsible in one aspect of their life tends to be the same in others aspects.  Not 100 percent of the time, obviously, but if you were going to bet on who's statement, her's or the company's, is more accurate where would you lay your money?  I wouldn't say she has no credibility but it's certainly taken a hit. 

All this with the usual caveats, of course.  Her recounting of what happened may be completely accurate and completely independent of her employment history.  It's even possible, as cp fa suggested, that the poor employment history may have been the result of the assault and it's handling by the company (though some of the events pre-date the date of the alleged assault).

That is a pretty broad brush you have there. I am not sure how you extrapolate "dishonest" to anything that has been made available in the public realm. Irresponsibility in her employment means that she is like that in other aspects of life?

Not a reach that I would be willing to make.

You ask me whose statement I would bet on. I don't know. If the media is believed there have been half a dozen more women come forward as well as the FA who made the comment at the meeting in 2010.

From what is only in the public realm here is what I believe. There is a probably a predator pilot that a case could not be made against within the guidelines of company policy.

[DEFCON]

I wouldn't know who at WJ investigated, or what expertise they had and perhaps it wasn't enough as you suspect, but knowing one, or more police agencies were investigating the same complaint, wouldn't prudence dictate corporate Counsel's involvement in the process?

  

[Innuendo]

Quote

Just think how much the coming suit is going to cost taxpayers. I wonder if Trudeau included that result in his budget? I think they maybe should take whatever Ghomeshi is awarded directly out of the CBC's budget and if it's so much they can no longer operate ... oh well and good riddance. 

Not sure that the judge helped  it be a slam dunk for a suit, at least it may be a speedbump on that road when the judge is quoted:

Quote

Horkins added that while the evidence in the case raises a reasonable doubt, it "is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened."

Almost like saying that the allegations were not proven,  but don't do it again.

CBC have already stated that their reasons were not solely on this court case. Preemptive shot maybe?

[Seeker]

9 minutes ago, chockalicious said:

That is a pretty broad brush you have there. I am not sure how you extrapolate "dishonest" to anything that has been made available in the public realm. Irresponsibility in her employment means that she is like that in other aspects of life?

 

Did you read what I posted or read what you wanted to see?  I said a person who is dishonest or irresponsible in one aspect of their life tends to be the same in other aspects.  Do you disagree with that?  Credibility matters.  Furthermore, the whole second paragraph of my post allows for the possibility that she isn't irresponsible here and that her recounting might be completely accurate.  However, can you honestly say that your sentiment is unchanged after seeing Westjet's corporate statement?  Mine has changed. 

[csteacy]

I think the reason this came up again years later is that the flight attendant in question spoke to another flight attendant who had the same thing happen to her by the same pilot BEFORE it happened to her and it was 'swept under the rug.' This is what enraged her the most, that what happened to her could have and should have been prevented. Whether she was late for work on multiple occasions is irrelevant except to the wrongful dismissal case. Whether or not she was assaulted, I think we can all agree that it is probably true. I have worked with this flight attendant and she is great at what she does. She simply wanted to ensure it doesn't happen again and if it does, that it doesn't get repeated. Maybe in the end, although her reputation will be tarnished, and her job has been lost, she will accomplish what she set out to do. I think there will be some more thorough harassment training in CRM next year.

[FA@AC]

38 minutes ago, chockalicious said:

 Irresponsibility in her employment means that she is like that in other aspects of life?

She seems to be.  Her employment record (if WestJet's telling of it is accurate), her online ravings on Twitter and Facebook and the fact that she was alone in a hotel room with a pilot she didn't know very well are all suggestive of incredibly poor judgement at the very least.

None of the above necessarily means that the assault she is alleging didn't occur.

 

 

 

[Seeker]

11 minutes ago, csteacy said:

I think the reason this came up again years later is that the flight attendant in question spoke to another flight attendant who had the same thing happen to her by the same pilot BEFORE it happened to her and it was 'swept under the rug.' This is what enraged her the most, that what happened to her could have and should have been prevented. Whether she was late for work on multiple occasions is irrelevant except to the wrongful dismissal case. Whether or not she was assaulted, I think we can all agree that it is probably true. I have worked with this flight attendant and she is great at what she does. She simply wanted to ensure it doesn't happen again and if it does, that it doesn't get repeated. Maybe in the end, although her reputation will be tarnished, and her job has been lost, she will accomplish what she set out to do. I think there will be some more thorough harassment training in CRM next year.

Thanks for your comments.  Have you also worked with "Pilot M?"

[csteacy]

13 minutes ago, seeker said:

Thanks for your comments.  Have you also worked with "Pilot M?"

I might have, but I actually haven't heard who he is yet so I don't know for sure.