Nasty sexual assault lawsuit against Westjet

[chockalicious]

This is an ugly incident that will get uglier if it turns out WS did anything to mitigate the incident.

I don't see how the response should have been other than anything to call the police.

Knowing some of the people who may have been involved they would have been way in over their heads dealing with an incident like this.

In her claim she says she reported it to FAAB. The head of FAAB at that time currently sits on the WS Board of Directors.

Heads are going to (and probably should) roll.

[dagger]

36 minutes ago, Airband said:

Actual claim fleshes out number of areas not covered in media reports.

LewisClaim.pdf

I'll be just as interested to see whether there is more to her dismissal than just being pushy to see her file and then using an expletive in an email. Frankly, that doesn't rise to level of just cause, unless they had a file of misbehaviour on her part, or if she made death threats as part of that email, as in I'm going to cut you're f----ing throat. Since I have no evidence that she did utter such a threat, a judge or jury is really going to lay the lumber on the company for unjust dismissal, and it really doesn't matter if she was sexually assaulted or not, only that she was mistreated by the company in any number of ways before she was dismissed. Also, the company is going to have to explain why they wouldn't show her her employment file, which is her right under Westjet policy. I don;t know if she has a good lawyer, but if she does, WS should really try to write her a big fat cheque and make this go away, because otherwise, it might cost the airline a whole lot more, not only in a judgment but in the court of public opinion.

 

And frankly, this won't help WS win another "Best Employer" award, not they are worth anything, but bragging rights are bragging rights. It's all part of Westjet's identity, so not good.

 

And if that pilot has assaulted two flight attendants, it is well past time for him to be put out to pasture. His name will get around soon enough. Imagine being a cabin crew or even a passenger if they realize Pilot M is the guy on the flight deck. No, this should never have reached this level. It's a failing of leadership that it has.

And what a recruiting tool for CUPE.

 

[moeman]

1 hour ago, dagger said:

And what a recruiting tool for CUPE.

Took the words out of my mouth.

[blues deville]

I've read the claim by the plaintiff (posted above) in this case and I find the time line to be a concern. It states the alleged event took place January 24th and the Vancouver RCMP were contacted January 26th. However, Westjet managers did not meet with their employee until over three weeks later on February 18th.

I can understand a delayed meeting if this was a request to amend a company dental plan or rrsp contribution, but a serious matter such as this should have received immediate attention from Westjet management in my opinion. 

But what I find really disturbing in the claim are items 37 & 38. If these details are in fact true, and I only know what is contained in the civil claim, it is going be a challeging time for all Westjetters and their public image. 

 

[DEFCON]

I don't know what the practice is anymore, but BA used to send the FA's to one hotel with the FO who was responsible for them if you will while the Captain was segregated from his charges at another facility.

 

 

  

[blues deville]

I believe AC used to be completely separate hotels for front and back end crew. Is that still the policy?

[DEFCON]

Just a little point, but I'm not sure that insubordination should be seen as a 'petty' issue in this business. Sure, insubordinate behaviour in the office environment may not rise above 'petty', but if tolerated onboard an aircraft, it can lead to truly serious consequences.

[rudder]

12 hours ago, cp fa said:

 

"Lewis's allegations were investigated by police in Hawaii; a Maui prosecutor confirmed to CTV News that a WestJet pilot was charged in the state in 2010."

 

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/ex-flight-attendant-says-westjet-failed-to-probe-pilot-sex-assault-1.2801439

 

Thank you. The statement of claim simply indicates that the matter was 'referred' to the prosecutor and not that the prosecutor did in fact file charges.

Would the filing of charges not have precipitated a bench warrant? And would that warrant for arrest not have been attached to the charged individual and therefore be actioned by US Customs and Immigration upon entry to the US? Has this individual not attempted entry in to the US under the course of their employment for over 5 years? Has the employer been complicit in facilitating this as an 'accommodation' intended to thwart prosecution?

As I said, there is an information gap that will hopefully be filled by the reply brief filed by the defendant (Westjet).

 

[Canoehead]

I think it is at AC (separate hotels)

 

A couple of things.  

1) Does WJ really encourage this social engagement type atmosphere, specifically including alcohol?  I cannot imagine it does specifically, unless it adds a caveat to be responsible about it etc.

2) Why could the plaintiff not be scheduled for RES flying?  Would there not just be a flag on the appropriate lines saying "No Fly With..."?

I'm just curious if any WJA employees can answer that.

[neverminds]

Huh? Pilots and FAs at AC stay at the same hotel on layovers for years now; the only time they would not is if the pilots and FAs were on different pairings and one group stayed at the short layover(i.e. Airport) hotel and the other group stayed at the long layover(i.e. Downtown ). That is the standard for most North American carriers and has been since the 1990's

 

[DEFCON]

I don't know what the practice is in the US, but Canadian 'warrants' generally have return distances attached, usually determined by the severity of the situation that resulted in the issuance of the warrant. For instance, if BC police were to investigate an individual for whatever the reason and learned through CPIC the dude had an outstanding warrant of some kind back in Toronto, the warrant will have a limited return range; i.e., the City of Toronto would not return the individual from BC if the outstanding warrant was for common assault, but they would in a heartbeat if the guy was wanted for murder.  

[rudder]

From another forum - perhaps a preview of the reply brief argument:

In 2008, as in this case, Westjet will have carried out the investigation that they are required to, in law, as laid down in their written policy which they are required to have, by law. Company policy will dictate whether the investigation is carried out in house by a senior manager or executive (typically legal counsel) or an outside law firm engaged by Westjet.

The test to be met for disciplinary action to be appropriate and allowed, is "on the balance of probabilities". If, on the balance of probabilities, the investigation found that the allegations were unsubstantiated then the matter ends (ended) there. This is a matter of law, not of "cover up" or "what were they thinking".

If it comes down to purely he-said vs she-said then the airline has done all it is required to do. To sanction the pilot in any way absent a "balance of probabilities" finding against him from the investigation would be unlawful.

In neither case is it required in law to reveal the results of the investigation to the complainant, nor to tell her what if any disciplinary action was taken against the pilot. Although the written company policy may say that the results and details of any disciplinary action will be revealed to the complainant in which case the company policy would have been followed.

[chockalicious]

41 minutes ago, Canoehead said:

I think it is at AC (separate hotels)

 

A couple of things.  

1) Does WJ really encourage this social engagement type atmosphere, specifically including alcohol?  I cannot imagine it does specifically, unless it adds a caveat to be responsible about it etc.

2) Why could the plaintiff not be scheduled for RES flying?  Would there not just be a flag on the appropriate lines saying "No Fly With..."?

I'm just curious if any WJA employees can answer that.

WS encourages a 1 crew concept. You generally don't see the pilots or FA leave the aircraft without each other. Generally move as a team rather than a bunch of individuals.

No formal guideline on socializing on layovers and especially no promotion of alcohol.

With the RES flying if you were to have a line of non compatible employees then you would have more people asking why. Severely doubt that there was any comment so she may have just been taken off Reserve by someone higher up the food chain.

 

[DEFCON]

I see another issue in all this. A Captain is a ‘senior manager’ of the Corporation, whether the suits want to see it that way, or not. As such, a considerable number of people are directly responsible to him, or her, as the case may be.

 

If the suits were to acknowledge the obvious, the legal, moral and ethical onus would rest squarely with the Captain and necessitate his, or her maintaining the proper distance between those he, or she is responsible for and too. Suits that pretend that only suits are management and take the ‘employees are all just employees’ attitude that so commonly emanates from head-sheds everywhere is to ignore the root cause that is perhaps fundamental to these sorts of corporate tribulations?     

[dagger]

1 hour ago, rudder said:

From another forum - perhaps a preview of the reply brief argument:

In 2008, as in this case, Westjet will have carried out the investigation that they are required to, in law, as laid down in their written policy which they are required to have, by law. Company policy will dictate whether the investigation is carried out in house by a senior manager or executive (typically legal counsel) or an outside law firm engaged by Westjet.

The test to be met for disciplinary action to be appropriate and allowed, is "on the balance of probabilities". If, on the balance of probabilities, the investigation found that the allegations were unsubstantiated then the matter ends (ended) there. This is a matter of law, not of "cover up" or "what were they thinking".

If it comes down to purely he-said vs she-said then the airline has done all it is required to do. To sanction the pilot in any way absent a "balance of probabilities" finding against him from the investigation would be unlawful.

In neither case is it required in law to reveal the results of the investigation to the complainant, nor to tell her what if any disciplinary action was taken against the pilot. Although the written company policy may say that the results and details of any disciplinary action will be revealed to the complainant in which case the company policy would have been followed.

But how would the balance of probabilities if the airline knew as of 2010 that there was a second, similar allegation against the same pilot? Among thousands of pilots, what is the probability that out of the blue two flight attendants who didn't know each other and weren't sharing information with each other both concocted incidents of a similar nature? The safer course, absent enough evidence to get him fired or arrested, would be to ground him, sideline him, whatever, with pay.

[Airband]

58 minutes ago, rudder said:

From another forum - perhaps a preview of the reply brief argument:

To sanction the pilot in any way absent a "balance of probabilities" finding against him from the investigation would be unlawful.

(from claim) - "WestJet told the plaintiff that it had suspended Pilot M's "Extended Operations" privileges and he was therefore no longer allowed to fly to Hawaii."

Would such a sanction suggest the investigation found there was at least some level of culpability with respect to the pilot's actions?

[DEFCON]

Maybe not Airband? The internal investigation may have concluded the pilot should have provided a better leadership example and not got himself into a position where he could be accused of wrong doing? Management may have acted to make the point, which is a form of discipline, but not necessarily an indication of 'criminal' culpability.

 

 

[Moon The Loon]

6 hours ago, blues deville said:

I've read the claim by the plaintiff (posted above) in this case and I find the time line to be a concern. It states the alleged event took place January 24th and the Vancouver RCMP were contacted January 26th. However, Westjet managers did not meet with their employee until over three weeks later on February 18th.

I can understand a delayed meeting if this was a request to amend a company dental plan or rrsp contribution, but a serious matter such as this should have received immediate attention from Westjet management in my opinion. 

But what I find really disturbing in the claim are items 37 & 38. If these details are in fact true, and I only know what is contained in the civil claim, it is going be a challeging time for all Westjetters and their public image. 

 

Pure speculation on my part Blues et al. The delay could be explained by an initial rebuff of the allegation by the company (or possibly even a threat from an individual or individuals), the complainant seeing no other way but to report it to the RCMP on her return to wherever, which seems to have been done, the RCMP contacting the Maui police, their investigation, their laying of a charge with notice finally reaching its way back to the WS corporate board room. This would have taken time. This then forces the company to address the matter formally.

For the Maui officials to actually lay a charge based purely on communications between them and the RCMP must mean the RCMP had a lot of credible information. Who knows? Maybe Capt. M was already known to the authorities.

I haven't read the plaintiff's claim and don't intend to, or more importantly, don't want to know details on pp. 37/38. There's been way too much prejudicial activity posted about this event. Including that petition: the equivalent of a line I remember from Bonanza - Little Joe in anger, at the base of a hanging tree, shouting "SOMEBODY GET A ROPE!'

We'll have to wait until due process takes place. Hopefully, it will.

My heart goes out to the 99.9% of WestJetters, who have been shamed by this (or these) individual(s) involved.

[ckl]

Now at least 6 alleged victims.  

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=821801

 

[better4me]

18 hours ago, cp fa said:

"Lewis's allegations were investigated by police in Hawaii; a Maui prosecutor confirmed to CTV News that a WestJet pilot was charged in the state in 2010."

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/ex-flight-attendant-says-westjet-failed-to-probe-pilot-sex-assault-1.2801439

There are two competing statements of fact with regard to the investigation in Hawaii. 

(1) The filed statement of claim does not state the pilot was charged in Hawaii. 

(2) The CTVnews comment that they were able to confirm charges were filed. 

If the CTVnews report is to be believed, then why is the charge not mentioned in the Statement of Claim? My guesstimate is because there is a higher level of due diligence required in the Statement of Claim. The plaintiffs law firm would have to provide proof of the charges if it was mentioned on the Statement of Claim. 

If Hawaii 50 did press charges against the pilot, it would have immensely bolstered the Statement of Claim's allegations.

If the CTVnews reporter could find out a material fact that could not be uncovered by the plaintiffs law firm, then we have a material malpractice event.   

To resolve the competing statements, I would put forth that Hawaii 50 has a warrant for the pilot as a person of interest, but no formal charges have been laid. 

[DEFCON]

Just a tiny point CKL, but it should be, 'alleged victims'.

 

1 hour ago, Moon The Loon said:

For the Maui officials to actually lay a charge based purely on communications between them and the RCMP must mean the RCMP had a lot of credible information. Who knows? Maybe Capt. M was already known to the authorities.

But is there an actual 'criminal charge'?

The Statement of Claim says the complainant made allegations to the Mounties who passed the information obtained over to the Hawaiian authorities who in turn passed it on to the local prosecutor. I don't like reading between the lines, but I've got to believe that had a 'charge' been laid the S of C would have referenced it and a whole lot more, but it did not, which indicates to me and UD can correct me if I'm wrong, that the Hawaiians didn't feel there was enough evidence available to meet the threshold for charging the pilot.

 

 

   

[blues deville]

On March 4, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Moon The Loon said:

Pure speculation on my part Blues et al. The delay could be explained by an initial rebuff of the allegation by the company (or possibly even a threat from an individual or individuals), the complainant seeing no other way but to report it to the RCMP on her return to wherever, which seems to have been done, the RCMP contacting the Maui police, their investigation, their laying of a charge with notice finally reaching its way back to the WS corporate board room. This would have taken time. This then forces the company to address the matter formally.

For the Maui officials to actually lay a charge based purely on communications between them and the RCMP must mean the RCMP had a lot of credible information. Who knows? Maybe Capt. M was already known to the authorities.

I haven't read the plaintiff's claim and don't intend to, or more importantly, don't want to know details on pp. 37/38. There's been way too much prejudicial activity posted about this event. Including that petition: the equivalent of a line I remember from Bonanza - Little Joe in anger, at the base of a hanging tree, shouting "SOMEBODY GET A ROPE!'

We'll have to wait until due process takes place. Hopefully, it will.

My heart goes out to the 99.9% of WestJetters, who have been shamed by this (or these) individual(s) involved.

Well this is just part of our legal process and when Westjet submits their statement of defence it may be possible to see their response to the plantiff's claim. Apparently the total number is now up to six or more flight attendants with a similar story regarding this or another pilot's actions. In no way I am suggesting anyone get a rope. What I would suggest is that pilot or persons involved find themselves a good lawyer. I'm sure Westjet has a good team in place already. 

This issue here is sexual harassment in the workplace and in this case, alleged to be while off duty but still on company business. It's unfortunate that it's making headlines and involving a good company like Westjet. However, if you've never had this happen in your family or to someone you know personally, it's probably not going to bother you as much.

So now its up to Westjet to do the right thing, investigate these charges internally and ensure its not a part of their workplace. 

 

[dagger]

1 hour ago, ckl said:

Now at least 6 alleged victims.  

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=821801

 

I failed to mention in my earlier messages that there is a big unknown in these cases if they reach the police/courts/media, which is why companies have to have a zero-tolerance policy and be vigilant, and education the work force. If it took a chance meeting after five years before the plaintiff met another FA who had been assaulted by the same pilot, once the suit was filed there might be others coming forward. 

 

And no airline, no employer, for that matter, should be complacent about what goes on in their work force. There are more than a few pricks like this pilot around.

[Moon The Loon]

1 hour ago, blues deville said:

In no way I am suggesting anyone get a rope.

Blues, terribly sorry if I left that impression. BAD ON ME!    

I tried to move away from your specific question and broaden the discussion to include a very few posts in this and other threads recommending a rush to judgment.

[blues deville]

14 minutes ago, Moon The Loon said:

Blues, terribly sorry if I left that impression. BAD ON ME!    

I tried to move away from your specific question and broaden the discussion to include a very few posts in this and other threads recommending a rush to judgment.

No harm, no worries Moon. I just wanted to clarify any earlier comments I may have posted that could be misinterpreted.