Nasty sexual assault lawsuit against Westjet

[chockalicious]

Saretsky has fired back and said the matter was investigated and closed. Also said the people named have been taken off active flying.

I will be interested to see how this plays out.

 

[dr1]

On March 3, 2016 at 11:08 PM, John S. said:

Since we know that the union is not, ah, robust, then this guy must have some pretty good friends in high places. 

 

That's a pretty vile statement John. There isn't a pilot, or any employee at WestJet for that matter, that has friends high enough to protect them from a sexual harassment charge.

I'd expect better from you.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, chockalicious said:

Saretsky has fired back and said the matter was investigated and closed. Also said the people named have been taken off active flying.

I will be interested to see how this plays out.

 

And here is the story from the WestJet Blog:

You may have read or seen stories in the media about a lawsuit filed against WestJet by a former employee, suggesting WestJet failed to take proper action after she alleged a pilot sexually assaulted her. We will file a statement of defense.

My commitment to our guests and to our people is to be transparent and forthcoming. I am writing directly to you, our guests, to provide you with as much information as I can. I am the accountable executive responsible for the safety and well-being of our more than 11,000 employees, which is a responsibility I do not take lightly.

Sexual assault is a serious matter. Every company has a responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of all its employees, and this is a responsibility we take most seriously at WestJet. As a husband, father of a daughter and brother to a sister I understand how important it is to get this right, no matter the role or gender of the complainant.

Investigations did take place on these matters and they were subsequently closed. 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. While this is underway, we are accommodating (out of active flying duty) those mentioned or otherwise affected by the alleged claims out of concern for their well-being and the continued safe operation of the airline.

Allegations are a serious concern whether true or untrue. We are acting in accordance with our code of conduct and ethics, and if new information comes out we will thoroughly investigate the matter.

Ours is a reporting culture, as it should be. Every day, thousands of our employees and tens of thousands of our guests expect a safe experience with WestJet and we are committed to providing one. We have an active whistleblower hotline and safety reporting system, which are evidence of our strong culture of reporting concerns to management. Regardless of its nature, each complaint made through our whistleblower hotline, including the outcomes of the investigations, is reported to the Safety, Health and Environment Committee of our Board of Directors. We have always treated any complaint with the seriousness it deserves and will continue to do so.

It was reported in the media today that there might be additional people who have come forward. The company has received no further information at this time. As has always been the case, we encourage our employees to report any concern that goes against our code of conduct or where they feel safety is at risk, and we urge them to bring any new information to our attention.

Other allegations have been made in the media that we have terminated employees for attempts to organize a union drive, a statement that is patently false. We have responded to a recent claim of such conduct with the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) and it is a publicly available document.

I am proud of the company we’ve built together and firmly believe that the more than 11,000 WestJetters who work hard every day to deliver our brand of friendly, caring service will continue to do so as we work through these as yet unfounded allegations.

I will continue to provide information as warranted and I thank you for your continued support.

http://blog.westjet.com/ceo-response-to-sexual-assault-allegations/

[John S.]

11 minutes ago, dr1 said:

That's a pretty vile statement John. There isn't a pilot, or any employee at WestJet for that matter, that has friends high enough to protect them from a sexual harassment charge.

I'd expect better from you.

Vile? Sorry you took it so hard. But I stand by my statement until the full story comes out and I'm proven wrong. If it turns out that the pilot did, indeed, get preferential treatment (I'll call that 'friends in high places') will you offer an apology?

A previous post quoted a senior executive as saying the matter was investigated and closed. Looks like it might be un-closed.

[dr1]

3 minutes ago, John S. said:

Vile? Sorry you took it so hard. But I stand by my statement until the full story comes out and I'm proven wrong. If it turns out that the pilot did, indeed, get preferential treatment (I'll call that 'friends in high places') will you offer an apology?

A previous post quoted a senior executive as saying the matter was investigated and closed. Looks like it might be un-closed.

I guarantee you won't be getting an apology.

 

You disappoint me.

[chockalicious]

Will also be interesting to see who did the investigation.

If it was Flight Ops that would be a huge conflict of interest. The People dept (HR) don't really have the skill.

Rumor is that Corporate Security was never brought in.

I thought Gregg parsed his words pretty carefully in the release regarding reviewing the investigation.

 

[UpperDeck]

Greg didn't parse his words. If you believe he was the author of that release...I have a bridge (etc.)

 

Note how the release states that he is a husband, father and brother to a sister...."and regardless of gender...." Really? If gender was irrelevant, why describe yourself relatively by reference to gender?

Consider the NFL's new response to domestic violence based simply upon allegations.....immediate suspension pending investigation.

My reading of this complaint is that Westjet never communicated to the complainant that it regarded her complaint as serious and one which would be pursued. It is alleged that they never kept her informed.

 

Repeatedly, we experience complaints that are escalated simply (and only) because there was a failure to empathize and to keep a complainant fully informed thereby conveying that the complaint was not being trivialized.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

Greg didn't parse his words. If you believe he was the author of that release...I have a bridge (etc.)

 

Note how the release states that he is a husband, father and brother to a sister...."and regardless of gender...." Really? If gender was irrelevant, why describe yourself relatively by reference to gender?

Consider the NFL's new response to domestic violence based simply upon allegations.....immediate suspension pending investigation.

My reading of this complaint is that Westjet never communicated to the complainant that it regarded her complaint as serious and one which would be pursued. It is alleged that they never kept her informed.

 

Repeatedly, we experience complaints that are escalated simply (and only) because there was a failure to empathize and to keep a complainant fully informed thereby conveying that the complaint was not being trivialized.

So UpperDeck can we assume you are in favour of "guilty until proven innocent"?  There is always a problem in "he said, she said" cases with apparently the burden of proof being on the accused. 

[chockalicious]

26 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

Greg didn't parse his words. If you believe he was the author of that release...I have a bridge (etc.)

 

Note how the release states that he is a husband, father and brother to a sister...."and regardless of gender...." Really? If gender was irrelevant, why describe yourself relatively by reference to gender?

Consider the NFL's new response to domestic violence based simply upon allegations.....immediate suspension pending investigation.

My reading of this complaint is that Westjet never communicated to the complainant that it regarded her complaint as serious and one which would be pursued. It is alleged that they never kept her informed.

 

Repeatedly, we experience complaints that are escalated simply (and only) because there was a failure to empathize and to keep a complainant fully informed thereby conveying that the complaint was not being trivialized.

I'm sure the release was run thru and tweaked by Legal and PR but yes I bet those are Gregg's words.

Gregg had outsize confidence in his marketing ability and that's what this release was.

Keep in mind that Gregg was at Alaska for the jack screw incident so he has been thru PR disasters before.

How much are you asking for the bridge, sounds intriguing.

[Vsplat]

I'm not sure there was much latitude for any other kind of response from WJ.  Those with any sense of the significance of an accusation like this (and that sense is by no means universal) would realize in an instant that, the longer this lingers, the stronger it gets.  Facts and harm be damned, the public is addicted to drama.  (who's the front runner for the Republicans again?)

Media training for company spokesman generally  has two mantras- if you have a positive message to get out, stay on message and avoid anything that might dilute it.  If you are involved in, or get pulled into a negative story, do everything you can to dilute the message and make the interview into something that's not worth publishing.  The puck goes in the glove, no rebounds.

We'll see how this goes.

Vs

[J.O.]

There's an undertone being taken toward Mr. Saretsky here that IMHO he doesn't deserve, at least not based on the facts we have. One thing he will never be accused of is letting others put words in his mouth. It's just not his style and he didn't get where he is because he's wishy-washy.

[Vsplat]

JO, not sure if you are referring to my post.

Any spokesman at a time like this would be advised on the parameters of anything they say to the public.  Failure to follow that advice could open them, personally, to damage should an off-script comment hurt the enterprise.  It's not necessarily as specific as what words to use, but it may certainly contain directions about things not to say or boundaries for the conversation.

While I can't speak for others, I am not implying anything about the attributes of this individual.  I don't know him.  My comments are simply to say there are only so many things one can expect to hear at this point.  Media prep is part art and part science.

I hope that clarifies.

Vs

[UpperDeck]

I wasn't suggesting that Saretsky would stand meekly aside and receive his text solely from the PR folk who by this point are probably independent of in-house.

No....I think that counsel both in-house and retained have the reins.

Malcolm...

Truthfully, I have a real problem with sexual assault cases. I'm on the side of the "wackers", a term I consider unfair. There are many people out there of both sexes wandering around with a lot if insecurity. Some define themselves by their sexual appeal. Others see sexual attraction as affirmation of self-worth. Obviously, non-consensual touching of a sexual nature occurs and occurs too frequently.

But...consider for a moment a female elected politician who goes to the hotel room of another member and provides the condom and some time later reports that she was victimized. In my opinion, such complainants must be exposed and ridiculed so as to deter similar conduct by others. How else are we to adequately protect the "true" victims? I feel the same about persons who are rejected by their newly-discovered soulmate to whom they surrendered themselves the night before and upon reflection, now realize that their consent was motivated by alcohol or drug or fatigue or some combination thereof.

As defense counsel, I believe that I should be able to cross-examine a complainant on any matter that reflects upon that person's credibility. To deny that right is to assume that all complainants are female (we're supposed to be gender neutral) and too frail to stand up to the bruising of an effective cross-examination.

As to this particular case....who knows? I have no idea what happened but I am certain of one thing.....it wasn't properly handled by WJ. If it had been, this young woman would not now be pursuing a lawsuit.

One other irrelevant comment. There was once a pilot....I met him....known far and wide for his conquests of female flight attendants. He loved and left (so to speak) a LOT of women. So....on one flight with an attractive young new hire, he spied his prey as the crew assembled near the gate. All the cabin crew knew what was coming so each took the opportunity to caution this new hire; in no uncertain terms, she was told what to expect if she fell for his lines....nothing.

And you all know what happened, don't you? Yup!!! There she was creeping out of his room before pickup.

Now....he was a "cad" (to put it nicely), but what was her responsibility? If the next day or the next month she realized he was never actually going to take her to that concert and decided that her "consent" was not "informed and complete", should we sympathetically respond and set the dogs on that cad?

In my opinion, we should be able to discuss these issues openly and without fear of censure.

[blues deville]

On March 5, 2016 at 7:19 PM, chockalicious said:

Will also be interesting to see who did the investigation.

If it was Flight Ops that would be a huge conflict of interest. The People dept (HR) don't really have the skill.

Rumor is that Corporate Security was never brought in.

I thought Gregg parsed his words pretty carefully in the release regarding reviewing the investigation.

 

Do you mean the 2010 HR (People) department or the current staff maintaining this office?

[DEFCON]

'nearly' everything

[chockalicious]

7 hours ago, blues deville said:

Do you mean the 2010 HR (People) department or the current staff maintaining this office?

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.

[J.O.]

7 hours ago, Rich Pulman said:

To be fair, the only "facts we have" are that an allegation of impropriety has been made. Everything else in this thread is based on speculation; nearly four pages worth. Even Donald Trump isn't getting that kind of attention here.

While I agree with your point Rich, I was referring specifically to the media statement from Greg Saretzky. I had an extended conversation with him where we specifically discussed the safety of his people and the operation. There is not a more engaged CEO on the subject anywhere on this planet. He is in no need of spin doctors to help frame what he says. 

[Vsplat]

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

[Johnny]

I am surprised by how many of you have already hung this guy as guilty.  I don't believe for one second that WJ covered this up, this isn't an episode of Mad Men from the 60's.  The top Management at WJ aren't stupid.

Like everything, there has to be way more to this story.  The Social Media explosion has already labeled this as "Rape," when was the last time you heard that term?

 

 

 

[Homerun]

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

I am surprised by how many of you have already hung this guy as guilty.  I don't believe for one second that WJ covered this up, this isn't an episode of Mad Men from the 60's.  The top Management at WJ aren't stupid.

Like everything, there has to be way more to this story.  The Social Media explosion has already labeled this as "Rape," when was the last time you heard that term?

 

 

 

If Westjet wasn't the poster child for unethical corporate behaviour then I might be inclined to agree with you. But WJ has ruthlessly demonstrated over the years that they have only one focus.... money.  It would not surprise me at all if this sort of behaviour was papered over if the decision makers felt it might impact the bottom line.

[CanadaEH]

7 minutes ago, Homerun said:

If Westjet wasn't the poster child for unethical corporate behaviour then I might be inclined to agree with you. But WJ has ruthlessly demonstrated over the years that they have only one focus.... money.  It would not surprise me at all if this sort of behaviour was papered over if the decision makers felt it might impact the bottom line.

WetJet is the poster child for unethical corporate behaviour? Ok then. 

[blues deville]

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

I am surprised by how many of you have already hung this guy as guilty.  I don't believe for one second that WJ covered this up, this isn't an episode of Mad Men from the 60's.  The top Management at WJ aren't stupid.

Like everything, there has to be way more to this story.  The Social Media explosion has already labeled this as "Rape," when was the last time you heard that term?

 

 

 

I don't think that's the case here but I do agree that Westjet hasn't covered up anything. What I do believe is they completely mishandled this event six years ago. However, both sides will now have an opportuntity to prove their cases in a court of law.

When social media helps promote things such as an annual good will Christmas drive, everyone loves the medium. When it allows the same people to chime in when unfortunate things like this occur, its not quite as welcome. 

[DEFCON]

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

[Seeker]

7 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

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

In situations like this there's no such thing as a definitive answer.

[DEFCON]

That's true Seeker, I should have said something like ... 'we'll have the definitive word of the Court in about 10 years'.