Jump to content

Nasty sexual assault lawsuit against Westjet


dagger

Recommended Posts

csteacy's position above brings a couple of things to mind.

If as WJ claims, all the personnel involved in these events are 'off duty' and free to do whatever they choose within the limits of the law of course, what business is it of WJ's then when two, or more adults engage in activities that everyone with a lick of  common sense knows can lead to 'consequences'?

For instance, fairness requires that all questions raised in respect of adult behaviour and the circumstances choice places people in must be framed from two perspectives. First, why would a pilot place himself in a vulnerable position by allowing a lone FA to remain in his room and consume alcohol, and second, why would a woman position herself alone in a room with a man after and while both have and will continue to consume alcohol?

I'm just guessing, but experience has taught me that men are a crafty competitive bunch that are almost perpetually in search of sexual opportunity and I've been told that some women enjoy playing close to the edge and get considerable pleasure from being the 'tease'. Sometimes things just don't work out the way either party had envisioned going in.

All speculation aside, as it now stands, two very short-sighted decision makers are not enjoying their respective lives and the corporation that employed them both is left to manage the very expensive and publically consequential results of the 'single' and poorly considered decision of two 'adult' people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply
59 minutes ago, seeker said:

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. 

I read what you posted. I found your use of the word dishonest curious in this case, not sure why you would use it. Have their been questions about her honesty?

I agree credibility matters. As was so deftly pointed out by another poster her employment record is irrelevant in the question of whether she was assaulted.

FWIW I know people who are vastly different in different aspects in their life. As an example I watch everyone single penny in my job and am a cheap unyielding **bleep** but have tendencies to at times spend like a drunken sailor in my personal life. I have never had issues missing work or getting there on time but can forget plans my wife has made and reminded me of the day before so I do not agree with these leaking of aspects of work/personal life.

My sentiment is not changed one bit after reading WS statement. Her crap attendance record does not matter to me if I had decide whether she was assaulted or not.

WS did a good job of showing why they canned her, she probably should have been fired long before she was. Other than that the statement of defence did not really sway me. It is a he said/she said issue (with at least 6 other she saids apparently).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, FA@AC said:

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.

Really? She was the last of the group to leave the room. She showed have known he was going to try to assault her (allegedly).

Quote

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, chockalicious said:

Really? She was the last of the group to leave the room.

 

Remaining alone in a hotel room with a guy you don't know is suggestive of poor judgement in my view, yes.  So is taking to Facebook to call the people who provide your employer's revenue "assholes", using the word "f***" in an e-mail to the employer where you already have a terrible record, and causing the cancellation of two flights by drinking when you shouldn't.  Need I go on?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choc

I think you're taking a position based on your earlier comment that suggested, 'it all boils down to a he said she said situation', but the issue of whether the assault occurred, or not, isn't the question before the Court as far as I know. .

Regardless, because of the nature of the case, the Court will be weighing the 'credibility' of the complainant against WJ's. As the case is cast, WJ is the Party being sued and pilot M is not on trial. He may not even be called as a witness in this case.

Separately, there is another point in the Statement of Defence that stood out as being a little problematic; the complainant appears to have notified the Company of her dilemma before departure, but the Statement of  Defence seems to indicate Lewis worked the flight home, which seems kind of odd under the circumstances.

When the dust settles, it's a good bet that WJ will revamp their policies and approach to handling this sort of horror show going forward.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Just think how much the coming suit is going to cost taxpayers.

Zero. There will be no lawsuit against the CBC. Both parties had already agreed to have the issues settled through binding arbitration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FA@AC said:

Remaining alone in a hotel room with a guy you don't know is suggestive of poor judgement in my view, yes.  So is taking to Facebook to call the people who provide your employer's revenue "assholes", using the word "f***" in an e-mail to the employer where you already have a terrible record, and causing the cancellation of two flights by drinking when you shouldn't.  Need I go on?  

The tide in this thread is changing. I agree with your most current post, Jenn. But as stated, I am personally aware of misbehaviour while off duty in a hotel.

During those years, the then companies abrogated any responsibility for off-duty behaviour. I had no disagreement with that as those companies did NOT recommend off-duty fraternization with crewmembers. At the same time, they did not actively discourage it (except for the time our Air Atlantic crews were told by Air Nova crews not to associate with each other after hours) only to be told to go Pack Sand: "My time off is MY time off, not yours."

This case seems to have as a premise, go spend off-duty time with your crew in a "relaxed" atmosphere. Have fun, enjoy.

I still maintain a reputable company is having its reputation dragged through the mud by either a disgruntled former employee or by a pilot desperately trying to protect his/her job.

Sadly, as events have developed, I'm now suspecting the former.

This is all opinion and bears no resemblance to what really happened/didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moon The Loon said:

I still maintain a reputable company is having its reputation dragged through the mud by either a disgruntled former employee or by a pilot desperately trying to protect his/her job.

That might be the case.  It could also be a bit of both, or that WestJet didn't handle the incident as well as it should have and is getting negative publicity as a result.  Or perhaps WestJet had a situation on its hands that was next to impossible to handle.  How does one handle a he said/she said?

I'm not Jenn, though, Moon.  People sometimes confuse me and cp fa.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the law suit against WJA about wrongful dismissal? Therefore, the brief by WJA indicated why she was dismissed. This other matter may or may not come up in court unless pilot M is also sued. 

The hiring of EY to look into this allegation, plus others that have been brought forward, will result in a change in WJA policies going forward. 

We still haven't heard pilots M version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Boney said:

Wasn't the law suit against WJA about wrongful dismissal? Therefore, the brief by WJA indicated why she was dismissed. This other matter may or may not come up in court unless pilot M is also sued.

The claim indicates she suing for Negligence and Breach of Contract as well as Wrongful Dismissal.

Pilot M's alleged assault and WJA's subsequent actions were outlined in the negligence claim and I would expect they would be explored in court.

Excerpt from claim:

Quote

In relation to the 2010 sexual assault, WestJet breached its duty of care and fell below the

applicable standard of care by, among other things:

(a) failing to properly investigate the sexual assault by Pilot M of the plaintiff;

(b). failing to take appropriate steps in response to the sexual assault and instead taking steps that undermined the plaintiff's dignity and self-worth by:

(i) failing to discipline Pilot M;

(ii) imposing schedule changes on the plaintiff's work schedule that
undermined her ability to advance in the place of employment;

(iii) imposing changes to Pilot M's employment that protected him
from the criminal investigation in Maui pursuant to the plaintiff's report of the sexual assault;

(iv) wrongfully demanding that the plaintiff remain silent about the
sexual assault

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, E-HANDLE said:

The VP in charge of the flight attendants has announced his retirement. I'll eat my hat if he's 50 yet. 

If memory serves, he was VP of HR in 2008  and 2010. 

Discuss

He might not be 40. I am not sure but may be the only VP who started at WS in front line position.

 

He was never an HR VP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, chockalicious said:

He might not be 40. I am not sure but may be the only VP who started at WS in front line position.

 

He was never an HR VP.

Okay. We can split hairs.

VP of People. So technically, not HR. A distinction without a difference.

In any case, a likeable enough person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry E-Handle, was not trying to split hairs, my apologies.

Had forgotten that he was VP in People dept at one time, always considered him the Inflight VP.

Lots of speculation on this thread and probably even more in his department. Nobody is dragging his name through the mud and he was a public face of the company who was in the media many times. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2016‎-‎03‎-‎26 at 4:08 PM, Kip Powick said:

January 1996

Have to think the current events played some role in the decision but not without consideration of when the magic date for retirement benefits would kick in (which would have been around this time frame). He was on the people department end of this conversation for way to may old school WestJetters before him. Sorry to hear as he is a decent guy. Depending on how this all plays out I would not rule out this working it way up higher on the food chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-03-24 at 0:40 PM, 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.

"Whether or not she was assaulted, I think we can all agree that it is probably true." 

Captain, you seem to feel that not only was she assaulted, but that an outside spectator to this legal proceedings would agree.  "We" do not, we cannot from what "we" know, have read, or have heard.  It would be irresponsible for a spectator to stipulate anything.

Is your relative certainty due to some inside direct knowledge?  Are you or can you be an corroborating witness to the stor[ies] in question?  That might explain your certainty.  If so, I'm sorry to hear of your involvement, and urge you to follow the appropriate channels to make sure that not only that the FA finds some success in her civil proceeding, but that perhaps the the authorities in any jurisdiction could find legal basis to pursue the matter further.

When you mention "harassment training," can you be more specific?  What exactly do you have in mind, that would be applicable to all groups, that might prevent this happening again?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the tide level keeps rising:

WestJet faces potential class-action lawsuit over alleged workplace harassment

     
 
     
     
     
     
 
     
     

Geordon Omand, The Canadian Press
Published Monday, April 4, 2016 6:10PM EDT
Last Updated Monday, April 4, 2016 8:30PM EDT

VANCOUVER -- A former WestJet flight attendant already embroiled in a legal dispute with the airline has launched a second lawsuit, accusing the company of fostering a corporate culture that tolerates harassment against female flight attendants and silences alleged victims.

Mandalena Lewis said she decided to file the latest lawsuit, potentially a class-action case, after former colleagues came to her with their stories of workplace harassment when her initial complaint became public.

"The common denominator was definitely fear. They were afraid to say anything for fear of losing their jobs, which is really sad and just shows there's a bigger problem that needs to be addressed," Lewis said in an interview.

"It's 2016 and we are still facing a huge injustice in our workplace environment. To say that WestJet has failed to create and maintain a safe work environment is incredibly accurate."

Lewis couldn't say how many women might be involved in the lawsuit.

She launched a separate lawsuit against WestJet earlier this year over allegations the airline didn't take proper action after she reported being sexually assaulted by a pilot while on a stopover in Hawaii.

On Monday, she submitted a notice of claim in British Columbia Supreme Court, asking that the second case be granted class-action status on behalf of all WestJet female flight attendants.

None of the allegations have been tested in court.

A spokeswoman for WestJet said in an email that the company is not in a position to comment because it hasn't been served with a notice of claim.

A document filed in court accuses WestJet of breaching its contract with its female flight attendants by failing to follow its own anti-harassment policy.

It describes how the airline industry is historically fraught with discriminatory attitudes toward women and that WestJet has failed to buck that trend by allowing a workplace culture that is permissive of harassment.

"This has included attitudes by some male pilots that female attendants are or ought to be sexually available to them and that harassment against female flight attendants is generally acceptable, or at least will not be subject to meaningful sanction," said the document.

Behaviours mentioned in the notice of claim include sexist jokes, humiliating and obscene comments, unwelcome physical contact and sexual advances.

Included in that list is "midnight knocking," which is defined as a request or demand for sexual favours by pilots while on a stopover.

The notice of claim alleges WestJet encourages women who report harassment to remain silent and are told they will be disciplined if they fail to keep quiet.

It describes WestJet's actions as "high-handed, malicious, arbitrary and highly reprehensible," and accuses the airline of profiting or obtaining an advantage by favouring male pilots over female flight attendants.

"WestJet (protects) harassers, often pilots, whom WestJet views as more economically valuable employees," the claim says.

While recourse through the justice system has its problems, bringing these issue to light helps create a space for a larger discussion, Lewis said.

"It's fuelling this fire of having women step forward and breaking the silence and breaking the fear, ... to be able to make change," she said.

"I won't stop until that happens."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I googled "midnight knocking" and did not get any stories of sorrid layovers, however multiple links sent me to the Gospel of Luke. Specifically Luke 11:5-13 a version is quoted below:

 

Quote

 

Then Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have no food to offer him.’ And suppose the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’ I tell you, even though he will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship, yet because of your shameless audacity[a] he will surely get up and give you as much as you need.

“So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

11 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[b] a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”[/QUOTE]

I have never been to Bible study, so I am probably going to get this wrong, it appears the holy scriptures are telling me that if a flight attendant receives a knock at midnight she should give her neighbour whatever he wants. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...