Um... yeah.

Interesting Development
 

A perennial brown noser, who Peter Principled himself up the food chain at WS announced his "surprise" retirement the day before the Easter long weekend.

This fellow was knee deep in the department that would have dealt with this file at the time.

There are countless current and former WJ'rs who are not disappointed to see this former flight attendant get the nice dose of karma he so richly deserves, inserted with extreme prejudice.

I must be missing something,Who retired? What position relevance to the case did his/her retirement have?

Attacking the victim when there are other victims ready to testify is not very good form.
It will just delay the cash payment and increase the relief sought by those representing the first victim .

To have a victim there needs to be a crime. What we have is an allegation of sexual harassment that must be proven. Recent events in Toronto show that witnesses may not be fully truthful. I am personally holding my judgement until more truthful facts are revealed in this allegation.

It looks like Ms. Lewis' claim is in serious trouble according to WJ's defence (Response to Civil Claim). First of all, the fact that she was issued formal disciplines on 8 occasions plus her e-mail in January 2016 constituting "gross insubordination" certainly gave WJ grounds for termination with cause, if you believe WJ. The alleged assault occurred while she and M were off duty outside the scope of their employment therefore there is no cause of action against the company. Her claims for breach of contract and negligence were brought well beyond the limitation period under the Limitation Act. There are a few more good defences to her claim according to WJ's Response. Therefore I suspect she may withdraw her claim before she gets in too deep financially. If she decides to proceed she will have to pay for examination for discovery of certain WJ people as well as her lawyer when she is discovered. WJ could move for summary judgement and if she were to lose she would most likely be liable for its costs. So I think she will have to realistically consider her position before her or WJ's next move.

Seen any Bill Cosby Shows lately ?


They shouted and bullied the first women down who dared to complain against that TV god. Even some people of Bill Cosby's race were denying his behaviour and it was not until many women came forward that they started to believe the networks might have a problem with the show after 50 plus witness's have come forward.
Only three women complained in the Toronto case ,but that case is not over as another court date has been set for June.


Eight women have complained against one employee. Why does he still have a job ?
It should have been stopped on the first complaint.
I would not want to be on an aircraft being flown by someone with self-control issues.

I would not want to be served on an airplane by an employee with 8 formal disciplines on her record. Including things like being removed from a flight for drinking alcohol, causing the cancellation of the flight. This is someone who describes her job, online, as "serving cancer in a can to assholes at 40,000ft". If she was assaulted as she alleges it deserves to be resolved, but when someone waits for six years to raise a complaint, and it coincides with being fired for insubordination (swearing at her manager), well, what does she think people will conclude?

Since the court of public opinion is apparently in full session, my observation is that the complainant is an extremely unsympathetic individual. Perhaps it's photos of her like this, I don't know...

:rolleyes:

http://s10.postimg.org/w6mtf7rh5/CHVXCkd_Us_AA7v_G4.jpg

fitliker,

While I do subscribe to the idea of 'where there is smoke, there's fire,' let's assume for a moment that all eight complaints could not be proven by the company and that, in some, there was a sliver of doubt as to their authenticity. You can't just fire the guy, even for something as serious as this. There are certainly parallels to the Cosby and Ghomeshi cases but I've said before, a claim of sexual assault cannot be taken as gospel. It must be proven the same way as any other case, as difficult as it is for victims to believe or understand it. It may, or may not, be fair, but it is our justice system.

Now, I do believe that after the second or third complaint about the same employee for the same issue, WJ management should have had a "come to Jesus" meeting with the pilot at the absolute minimum or at best sought outside counsel to conduct the investigation. The later would certainly have helped WJ's case and may have ended this before it hit the papers.

As for Ms. Lewis. She may have been assaulted. Her behaviour and professional performance cannot sway from the fact that if she was truly assaulted, she deserves justice. However, she is not making it easy for herself or for those behind her. She is painting a very nice picture for the defense to argue "false allegation."

As I said in my earlier post, I don't think this is going to go much further. WJ has pleaded that the alleged assault took place outside the scope of Lewis' employment. I think that a B.C. court would have difficulty in finding against WJ. However, please don't get me wrong, I am not supporting WJ but only giving a legal opinion.

Interesting rotornut. I've never thought about it, but are you suggesting that a layover might be treated the same as an SDO? That is, you're not "working" during a layover just the same as you're not working during an SDO.

Are WJ pilots and FA's paid per diems while away from base or only while they are operating at a duty station? That to me would be the kicker.

+TSRA
I've never worked for an airline so you have raised an interesting point. I'm afraid I can't give an immediate answer... let me think about it.

April 4 2016....second lawsuit filed ...this time possible class action,:

WestJet faces potential class-action lawsuit over alleged workplace harassment - British Columbia - CBC News

Karma can be a bitch :)

WestJet shareholders reject call to replace CEO over handling of sex assault investigation
'The company sets the tone and we believe that this issue goes right to the top,' activist says
Tue May 03, 2016 - CBC News
By Scott Dippel, Robson Fletcher
WestJet shareholders rejected a request today to remove president and CEO Gregg Saretsky over the way the airline is handling allegations of sexual assault in the workplace.
The call for the board of directors to replace Saretsky came during the company's annual general meeting in Calgary.
Emma Pullman, with the activist group Sum of Us, said the CEO needs to be held accountable for the company's investigation of a flight attendant's complaint that she was sexually assaulted by a pilot while they were in Hawaii.
"The company sets the tone and we believe that this issue goes right to the top," Pullman said.
"Mr. Saretsky enabled a work environment where allegations of sexual assault were not adequately investigated. It's not just the issue of one bad egg."
Shareholders voted against removing Saretsky, who defended the way the company has responded to the allegations.
He noted WestJet has hired Ernst & Young to review the company's policies and how it handled the alleged assault in Hawaii.
"It hasn't been confirmed and we're reviewing whether or not we have the right policies and procedures, and we'll wait for EY to tell us what was great and what can be better or best in class," Saretsky said.
That report will be finished within a couple of months, he added, and the company will make it public.