Cathay sued in USA for illegal termination
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the details of the ejection referred to in the complaint are a matter of public record now that the date was specified by the plaintiff's lawyers. In paragraph 31 on page 9 of the complaint, the lawyers specify the date of the ejection (13 Sep 2011) and the US Navy "Mishap Stats FY11" lists the event, which took place at NAS Fallon. The report states:
13 Sep 2011: (Fallon, NV) An F-18 departed the runway on landing, pilot ejected and was recovered with minor injuries.
The Times-Picayune news has the following articles about the accident:
New Orleans-based Navy fighter pilot slightly injured in Nevada crash | NOLA.com
Ten years after a near miss, the Navy's River Rattlers still rattling windows at Belle Chasse | NOLA.com
I'm not sure whether the Navy released the full details of the investigation to the press but the newspaper report did mention the Freedom of Information Act, so maybe they did.
I'm not trying to draw conclusions but simply stating that the circumstances surrounding the accident are a matter of public record - thanks to the plaintiff's lawyers.
STP
13 Sep 2011: (Fallon, NV) An F-18 departed the runway on landing, pilot ejected and was recovered with minor injuries.
The Times-Picayune news has the following articles about the accident:
New Orleans-based Navy fighter pilot slightly injured in Nevada crash | NOLA.com
Ten years after a near miss, the Navy's River Rattlers still rattling windows at Belle Chasse | NOLA.com
I'm not sure whether the Navy released the full details of the investigation to the press but the newspaper report did mention the Freedom of Information Act, so maybe they did.
I'm not trying to draw conclusions but simply stating that the circumstances surrounding the accident are a matter of public record - thanks to the plaintiff's lawyers.
STP
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hongkong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cxorcist,
I have been trying in vain to lead you by the hand on this. I am not from the US nor do I have a security clearance but I know all about the incident. If I know then you can bet your bottom dollar that CX does!
I have been trying in vain to lead you by the hand on this. I am not from the US nor do I have a security clearance but I know all about the incident. If I know then you can bet your bottom dollar that CX does!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess we can understand why manager Basings was moved on. Quite vindictive with regard to denying him leave etc. Hope his new employers appreciate they have a real class act in their midst .
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thoughts by some who know the US legal system, and some that have ZERO knowledge of it.
Although many of us would agree the case could have had a more stellar plaintiff in terms of things occurring after his employment, this has zero bearing on the alleged violation of USERRA, save that information was discovered during the subsequent investigation by the FBI which was useful to the plaintiff later.
Regarding the pilot's ejection, it doesn't matter what CX knows or doesn't know when it comes to USERRA. In actual fact, there would have been two separate boards convened; a safety (mishap) investigation board and an accident investigation board. The former is solely for mishap prevention and would contain privileged information (on the equivalent level of attorney/client privilege) which would not be able to be released to the general public or used in a court of law (and is for official use only; as such would not generally be available under a FOIA request).
Mishap prevention board conclusions and findings cannot ever be used for punitive action.
The OTHER board which would potentially have been convened is the accident investigation board. This is a military legal proceeding and in general cannot access the safety board's information or use it in ITS proceeding. It is an independent legal investigation and can be used for punitive action by the service if the service believes it warranted. Results of this can be released to the general public in some form or accessed through a FOIA.
Whether or not AIB information could be used in litigation would be up to the lawyers.
Neither has any bearing whatsoever on the alleged incident. Nor does some attache's or mid level officer's opinion (in fact were I in that position I'd be VERY careful issuing opinions to an outside entity). Depending on how one does it this in and of itself could further substantiate a USERRA violation charge as well as subject all parties involved to further legal action by breaking OTHER US laws.
Nor does injury while in the service allow an employer to terminate an employee (even if due to the injury he or she becomes unable to perform the job he or she was hired to do). Under USERRA, the employer must re-employ the individual and make reasonable efforts to accommodate the disability, make reasonable efforts to have him become requalified in his former position (while re-employing the individual in an equivalent position of seniority and pay), or if the individual is not able to become requalified for the job offer the individual a job which as closely approximates his former job in terms of seniority and pay as practical. Key point being it cannot fire him.
In actuality, the military really has nothing to do with adjudicating a USERRA charge (save that the member/veteran is in the service and in potentially providing supporting information on his or her service to be used by the DOL). The complaint is processed by the US department of labor which is a separate entity and ultimately decided in a US courtroom. The extent to which the government gets involved depends solely on their desire to pick up the case (and it's not outside the realm of possibilities that IT would intervene toward an employer who was violating USERRA if the violation were egregious enough); the potential plaintiff never loses the right to go out on his or her own and take it to a US court.
US law is its own animal completely different from anything on the planet. Non pertinent information can--and will--be excluded by the lawyers arguing the case at trial. In general, only evidence directly relevant to the complaint itself can be submitted, and anything irrelevant to the charge and/or obtained by questionable sources or circumstances won't be allowed in at all.
Fr' instance--although criminal law is different somewhat from civil law, in the case of the Treyvon Martin shooting, ALL evidence of Martin's criminal history, alleged drug use, misbehavior at school, gang-related postings on the internet, past incidents, etc. were excluded from the trial (which would greatly have helped the defense although they won anyway). This was because they were ruled not relevant to Zimmerman's decision to use deadly force to defend himself and what was going through HIS mind at the time.
Stuff like this is pretty typical in trials in the US. So in this case, the only thing a jury would see is that evidence which specifically addressed the charge itself (on both sides). Heresay, opinions by third parties not qualified to render it, second hand information, monday morning quarterbacking, etc. would never make it in.
BP--apparently your 'know all about' the incident may not be as much as you think it is. If it was, you'd ALSO know that not recruiting (or selectively discriminating against) people who have served or are serving violates USERRA as well.
Bottom line is there are significant legal protections for workers of companies which operate in (or into) the US and one ignores these at one's own peril.
Although many of us would agree the case could have had a more stellar plaintiff in terms of things occurring after his employment, this has zero bearing on the alleged violation of USERRA, save that information was discovered during the subsequent investigation by the FBI which was useful to the plaintiff later.
Regarding the pilot's ejection, it doesn't matter what CX knows or doesn't know when it comes to USERRA. In actual fact, there would have been two separate boards convened; a safety (mishap) investigation board and an accident investigation board. The former is solely for mishap prevention and would contain privileged information (on the equivalent level of attorney/client privilege) which would not be able to be released to the general public or used in a court of law (and is for official use only; as such would not generally be available under a FOIA request).
Mishap prevention board conclusions and findings cannot ever be used for punitive action.
The OTHER board which would potentially have been convened is the accident investigation board. This is a military legal proceeding and in general cannot access the safety board's information or use it in ITS proceeding. It is an independent legal investigation and can be used for punitive action by the service if the service believes it warranted. Results of this can be released to the general public in some form or accessed through a FOIA.
Whether or not AIB information could be used in litigation would be up to the lawyers.
Neither has any bearing whatsoever on the alleged incident. Nor does some attache's or mid level officer's opinion (in fact were I in that position I'd be VERY careful issuing opinions to an outside entity). Depending on how one does it this in and of itself could further substantiate a USERRA violation charge as well as subject all parties involved to further legal action by breaking OTHER US laws.
Nor does injury while in the service allow an employer to terminate an employee (even if due to the injury he or she becomes unable to perform the job he or she was hired to do). Under USERRA, the employer must re-employ the individual and make reasonable efforts to accommodate the disability, make reasonable efforts to have him become requalified in his former position (while re-employing the individual in an equivalent position of seniority and pay), or if the individual is not able to become requalified for the job offer the individual a job which as closely approximates his former job in terms of seniority and pay as practical. Key point being it cannot fire him.
In actuality, the military really has nothing to do with adjudicating a USERRA charge (save that the member/veteran is in the service and in potentially providing supporting information on his or her service to be used by the DOL). The complaint is processed by the US department of labor which is a separate entity and ultimately decided in a US courtroom. The extent to which the government gets involved depends solely on their desire to pick up the case (and it's not outside the realm of possibilities that IT would intervene toward an employer who was violating USERRA if the violation were egregious enough); the potential plaintiff never loses the right to go out on his or her own and take it to a US court.
US law is its own animal completely different from anything on the planet. Non pertinent information can--and will--be excluded by the lawyers arguing the case at trial. In general, only evidence directly relevant to the complaint itself can be submitted, and anything irrelevant to the charge and/or obtained by questionable sources or circumstances won't be allowed in at all.
Fr' instance--although criminal law is different somewhat from civil law, in the case of the Treyvon Martin shooting, ALL evidence of Martin's criminal history, alleged drug use, misbehavior at school, gang-related postings on the internet, past incidents, etc. were excluded from the trial (which would greatly have helped the defense although they won anyway). This was because they were ruled not relevant to Zimmerman's decision to use deadly force to defend himself and what was going through HIS mind at the time.
Stuff like this is pretty typical in trials in the US. So in this case, the only thing a jury would see is that evidence which specifically addressed the charge itself (on both sides). Heresay, opinions by third parties not qualified to render it, second hand information, monday morning quarterbacking, etc. would never make it in.
BP--apparently your 'know all about' the incident may not be as much as you think it is. If it was, you'd ALSO know that not recruiting (or selectively discriminating against) people who have served or are serving violates USERRA as well.
Bottom line is there are significant legal protections for workers of companies which operate in (or into) the US and one ignores these at one's own peril.
Last edited by Shep69; 5th Feb 2016 at 13:24.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Shep. Exactly correct. 100%. I scoff at the Company muppets who think they know something and can justify CX's behavior with it. It doesn't matter if Osmanski was the worst CX employee ever and/or a horrible FA-18 pilot. It doesn't matter if he pranged a Hornet or wore his old CX uniform through security in Honolulu. The only thing that matters is that CX did not follow the law. They are culpable for their behavior towards Osmanski regardless of his "trouble with training" or "abuse" of military leave. CX settled because they screwed up, again. Have you ever seen a Company be sued by their employees as much as CX? I haven't. They have to hold some type of record for worst employer ever wrt abiding with the law. Why would anyone defend them unless being paid well to do so?
Btw, rumor is that the CAD is coming down hard on CX wrt O days. That would be a first. De facto reserve post pattern may well go away. Ha, Contract Compliance starts looking much beefier when you get rid of O days. Choke on that AT...
Btw, rumor is that the CAD is coming down hard on CX wrt O days. That would be a first. De facto reserve post pattern may well go away. Ha, Contract Compliance starts looking much beefier when you get rid of O days. Choke on that AT...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hongkong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rest my case your honour
Shep69, ever heard of "he who protest to much"?
Cxorcist. I'll pass on the Arizona water front property option but it looks like you bought a few acres of rice paddy in Thailand!
Previous posts of mine have been critical of the company. Not this time.
Happy new year.
Cxorcist. I'll pass on the Arizona water front property option but it looks like you bought a few acres of rice paddy in Thailand!
Previous posts of mine have been critical of the company. Not this time.
Happy new year.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh
I find Lt Col, USAF 3rd May 2012 email to the OSD, viewed impartially rather interesting, without doubt skilfully written, potentially defensive possibly a reversal ultimately leaving more questions than answers. Interesting that it states no legal advice to CX.
Having skimmed the document I get a sense of guns going of in holsters, carts and horses. Unfortunate it took wiser heads to knock it off and in stark contrast to their predecessors, excluding the plaintiff of course.
"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."
William Shakespeare
I find Lt Col, USAF 3rd May 2012 email to the OSD, viewed impartially rather interesting, without doubt skilfully written, potentially defensive possibly a reversal ultimately leaving more questions than answers. Interesting that it states no legal advice to CX.
Having skimmed the document I get a sense of guns going of in holsters, carts and horses. Unfortunate it took wiser heads to knock it off and in stark contrast to their predecessors, excluding the plaintiff of course.
"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."
William Shakespeare
