Jump to content

Nasty sexual assault lawsuit against Westjet


dagger

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

That's one heck of a big tv you must have. Really, REALLY big!! And the image must have been on that big tv for a longgggg time or you're a VERY fast reader with a good memory.

Praise when praise is due.

I would suggest it was deft use of the pause button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, seeker said:

Or expert use of the DVR/PVR function.

Of course, you and Mo are correct; that is a possibility. I hadn't thought of someone recording news programs as a matter of routine.

I did notice Newman has two posts, both on this thread. It is not unknown for companies to have "robots" that monitor forums for adverse remarks. The company then through its agent(s) respond defensively where deemed appropriate. Social media...don't you love the complexities?

Disclaimer.....I know not whether Newman is  a PR poster or an "innocent" member of the "airline family".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the "Official News Release"

Quote

WestJet announces retention of professional services firm EY

 

 

Firm to provide third-party review services in wake of allegations

CALGARY, March 11, 2016 /CNW/ - WestJet today announced it has retained EY (Ernst & Young LLP) to provide an independent, third-party assessment of WestJet's current investigative and reporting procedures as well as practices for a safe and harassment-free work environment for its employees.

"Last week, a wrongful dismissal lawsuit was filed against WestJet by a former employee," said Gregg Saretsky, WestJet President and CEO. "WestJet intends to defend this lawsuit in court. However, the broader issues of sexual assault and harassment in the workplace that were raised are matters we take most seriously. WestJet has always had a zero tolerance policy with respect to these matters and remains committed to ensuring that we provide a safe and harassment-free work environment for our employees and guests.

"We asked our employees to come forward with any information they might have regarding assault or harassment in the workplace and we have heard from some WestJetters through internal channels. In light of this new information, I have asked our Executive Vice-President, People and Culture, Mark Porter, to engage EY to conduct an independent investigation into the issues WestJetters have brought to our attention."

"EY is recognized globally as a leader in human resources consulting and we're confident that with their help we can build upon our current practices to continue to reflect the values and culture that WestJetters uphold," said Mark Porter.

SOURCE WestJet rt.gif?NewsItemId=C8658&Transmission_Id=
 

For further information: Media contacts: To contact WestJet media relations, please email media@westjet.com.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ey is a large company with vast experience. If they are given a broad mandate then Westjet will get a very comprehensive (and expensive!) report. 

That being said, I wonder is EY will suggest or conclude that the terms 'People and Culture' instead of HR and 'WestJetters' instead of employees (just two of many examples) have, over the years, contributed to a sense of entitlement of some staff.

This could be a summer of discontent in the Cliveory Tower. (Not my word, but I like it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I think about this story, the more I think there are a number of issues that invite discussion on this forum and consideration at an executive level within Air Canada as well as other airlines. I am not referencing the allegations in this particular case but the relationship between cabin crew and flight crew and a "code of conduct" for all employees.

I think I might have mentioned that a recently hired pilot told me that it was conveyed to him and others that fraternization with cabin crew was generally discouraged. At Westjet, a sense of unity of purpose is apparently encouraged. I have always believed that the relationship that I witnessed at CP (CAIL) between the front and back end; a relationship that appeared to convey mutual respect and trust, was one that should be emulated if for no other reason than enhanced safety.

And yet....I now better appreciate the potential pitfalls of encouraging socialization.

How then does the employer facilitate open and respectful communication without appearing to facilitate inappropriate behaviour?

Another issue is the disparate personal definitions of "appropriate conduct and communication" which are as often as not dependent upon where one was raised as much as by whom.

In my opinion, for example,  normative language and conduct in Southwestern Ontario often differs markedly from what is acceptable in Eastern Ontario.

How is allowance made for those discrepancies when inter-personal conflict arises as a result?

As posted earlier, the conversation is not only necessary; it is valuable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-03-11 at 2:16 PM, UpperDeck said:

That's one heck of a big tv you must have. Really, REALLY big!! And the image must have been on that big tv for a longgggg time or you're a VERY fast reader with a good memory.

Praise when praise is due.

80 inch tv... and the PVR comes with a pause button that can pause live tv while watching the news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

Of course, you and Mo are correct; that is a possibility. I hadn't thought of someone recording news programs as a matter of routine.

I did notice Newman has two posts, both on this thread. It is not unknown for companies to have "robots" that monitor forums for adverse remarks. The company then through its agent(s) respond defensively where deemed appropriate. Social media...don't you love the complexities?

Disclaimer.....I know not whether Newman is  a PR poster or an "innocent" member of the "airline family".

Just an innocent member of the airline family.  Hardly a robot monitoring the forum on behalf of WestJet, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested WestJet Christmas party impropriety in my first post which was a big problem that people through the company chose to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

Of course, you and Mo are correct; that is a possibility. I hadn't thought of someone recording news programs as a matter of routine.

 

 

I wouldn't watch it any other way, I don't watch anything live, I hate commercials, especially if you are in the US, every news program is flooded with ads for cures for medical conditions I have never heard of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mo32a said:

I wouldn't watch it any other way, I don't watch anything live, I hate commercials, especially if you are in the US, every news program is flooded with ads for cures for medical conditions I have never heard of.

All of our programs (those we want to watch) are recorded on our PVR (Shaw Gateway) so we can watch them when we want, I do love the fast forward to skip the commercials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newman.....said in appropriate Seinfeld tones.....(joke)

"Robot" of course refers not to humanoids but rather is a description of software that is programmed to constantly scan media for certain words. When those words are detected in combination, a monitor is alerted. Neat PR stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2016 at 8:23 AM, Malcolm said:

Here is the "Official News Release"

 

Oh good,WestJet called in their lap dog professional services firm. 

The final report on the investigation conducted by WS will be expensive and will vindicate the company. It will be expensive because EY will bring in their most respected Forensic and HR Investigations partners from around the globe. These partners come with impressive CV but can be sold for the right expensive price. 

During the Sabre cutover, EY was used to bully the external auditor and other consultants into eating a bunch of professional services fees. The EY report conveniently came wrapped in a series of service proposals that stated EY would take over all professional services for audit, tax, and IT consulting. When word of EY's approach got out in Corporate Calgary, they lost a number of contracts due to the appearance of impropriety. . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2016 at 9:59 AM, Malcolm said:

I think we are still waiting proof that such a warrant exists.

 

On 3/10/2016 at 10:36 AM, boestar said:

Someone would have to actually search for the existing warrant specifically.  That is only done every 5 years or so for a standard RAIC holder.  Annualy for Canada RAICs with a FULL search every 5 years

 

I did some digging around the internet on Hawaiian sexual assault law and found a non-authoritative source that mentions levels/classes for sexual assault. My findings indicate that because penetration was not part of the complainants accusation, any charge is considered a fourth degree sexual assault which is a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors have a two year statute of limitations in the state of Hawaii.  

The misdemeanor makes sense from all sides to this situation:

- Doubtful that RAIC investigations would uncover such a low level charge. In this case a misdemeanor is the same class as a parking or speeding ticket. 

- Statute of limitations would explain why there is no other evidence of the warrant.  The warrant would expire two years after the incident took place, in this case in January 2012. 

- A Misdemeanor charge in Hawaii would detract from the complainants Canadian civil lawsuit. It would appear as if the complainant was making a mountain out of a mole hill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"- A Misdemeanor charge in Hawaii would detract from the complainants Canadian civil lawsuit. It would appear as if the complainant was making a mountain out of a mole hill. " (per better4me)

Personally, I think that an offensive comment. The allegation is that this woman was sexually assaulted. You describe that as a "molehill" because there was no penetration??!! 

Did you think about that before posting?

You evidence an equal level of understanding of the law. Whether the offender's conduct amounted to a misdemeanour or a felony under US law is irrelevant to a determination of civil liability in Canada for the impugned conduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

better4me: I was as appalled as UD for your insinuation that this is a nonsense matter blown out of proportion by the complainant(s). As I stated way back at the beginning of this thread, I have seen activity like this dozens, if not a hundred times in my 35 years. Sometimes it is addressed; most times it is not. ANY untoward behaviour is unacceptable. ANY behaviour. Whether it is on the job, or during layovers. Traditionally, some companies sluff this kind of activity off as they deny responsibility for their individual's behaviours while "off duty". I say "Nonsense!" When you are in the hotel, the shuttle van, the restaurant, you are seen as representing your company, not so much in an overt manner, but when matters go south and the truth (allegation, accusation, whatever) and your company's name gets dragged through the mud: one must accept responsibility.

Please edit your post removing this offensive statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fido said:

Is that how you stifle an opinion that you do not like?

If he had said "Women who claim to be sexually assaulted are, in my opinion, making mountains out of molehills", would you defend him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upper deck and Moon the Loon. Allow me to reframe my thoughts.

Hawaiian State Penal Code, part three, sections 707-712 deals with sexual assault. First, second, and third degree sexual assault requires penetration for a felony conviction. Fourth degree sexual assault (everything that does not involve penetration) is a misdemeanour. Further Hawaiian State Law does not differentiate missdemeanors between Administrative Infractions (such as parking tickets) and more serious infractions (such as sexual assault). 

I have one brief incident with Hawaiian State Law. While on vacation in HNL nine years ago I got a parking ticket. This was considered a misdemeanour. When I returned home I talked with the traffic court officer about the parking ticket who advised that misdemeanours do not have any criminal aspects to the charge and there is no further penalty on conviction (other than paying the fine). So I paid the $40 and went on my way. 

I too am shocked to learn that non penetrative sexual assault is considered so lightly in Hawaii. My guess is that the expert lawyers at Farris LLP are more shocked. Rather than try to litigate and explain the quirks of the Hawaiian Penal Code to a Canadian Judge, my further guess is the complainants lawyers removed or intentionally did not mention the Hawaiian charges. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, better4me said:

I too am shocked to learn that non penetrative sexual assault is considered so lightly in Hawaii. My guess is that the expert lawyers at Farris LLP are more shocked. Rather than try to litigate and explain the quirks of the Hawaiian Penal Code to a Canadian Judge, my further guess is the complainants lawyers removed or intentionally did not mention the Hawaiian charges. 

 

 

 

 

Clarification noted. I still find the final sentence in your original post offensive. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, better4me said:

Upper deck and Moon the Loon. Allow me to reframe my thoughts.

Hawaiian State Penal Code, part three, sections 707-712 deals with sexual assault. First, second, and third degree sexual assault requires penetration for a felony conviction. Fourth degree sexual assault (everything that does not involve penetration) is a misdemeanour. Further Hawaiian State Law does not differentiate missdemeanors between Administrative Infractions (such as parking tickets) and more serious infractions (such as sexual assault). 

I too am shocked to learn that non penetrative sexual assault is considered so lightly in Hawaii. My guess is that the expert lawyers at Farris LLP are more shocked. Rather than try to litigate and explain the quirks of the Hawaiian Penal Code to a Canadian Judge, my further guess is the complainants lawyers removed or intentionally did not mention the Hawaiian charges. 

 

 

 

 

You are confounding a number of unrelated facts and drawing an unjustified conclusion.

In your first post, you clearly state that because there was no penetration in the alleged assault, it was a "molehill". Now you explain that what you meant was that since sexual assault is "only" a misdemeanour while "rape" is a felony, it is the State of Hawaii that characterizes the offence as a "molehill" since it is in the same category as a parking ticket.

I will say only this......you are wrong. In Canada, there are many hybrid offences where the accused can be prosecuted by indictment or the Crown can elect to proceed by summary conviction. The characterization of the offence as "hybrid" does not mean the offense is trivial. While I acknowledge readily that the range of punishment is far less than I would expect, a conviction of this charge in Hawaii carries with it incarceration for a period up to one year. You were not subject to that punishment for your offence. There are at least four other States that similarly characterize sexual assault with similar penalties.

Regarding the civil lawsuit, your "guess" is not an "educated guess" and is well off the mark. The pleading of a criminal charge as a fact in a Statement of Claim would be "scandalous" (irrelevant) and would be "struck" (ordered to be removed) upon motion. Whether the charge was a felony or misdemeanour, the fact of a charge was irrelevant to the civil lawsuit. Now a guilty plea.....that would be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UD et al:

I did not read his comment in that frame.  I read it that the charge in Hawaii carrying a misdemeanor offence would make it LOOK like a mole hill to the Canadian courts when looking at the civil suit.  As if to say "well the authorities in the US dismissed it as nothing so case dismissed".  

Better to not mention it and let the case stand on its own.

I think the original comment was read out of context.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...