Pilots streamed airplane bathroom video to cockpit

[genna]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...-bathroom-flight-attendant-claims/2458570001/

if true, how stupid does one have to be?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The original complaint is available for free on court listener at https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1198622/gov.uscourts.azd.1198622.1.3.pdf.
Response by the pilot and co-pilot also at https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1198622/gov.uscourts.azd.1198622.9.0.pdf .

In the complaint Steinaker states she asked if the video was live-streaming and alleges co-pilot stated that it was. Co-pilot denies this statement in the response.
Also alleges that co-pilot stated that such cameras were in all new 737s! Denied by the co-pilot.
Pilot and co-pilot deny that they know whether firearm was left in the cockpit.

Causes of action are 1. Invasion of Privacy, 2. Intentional or Reckless Infliction of Emotional Distress, 3. Sexual Harassment, 4. Retaliation (with respect to SWA)

Seems like they could get somewhere with #2, though the jury might thing the whole lawsuit is a joke.

As to 3 and 4, SWA has not filed a response yet.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I fail to see how the husband is a victim. Can you have personal knowledge of the incident if you weren’t there?

If she is suffering from psychological distress, he could likely argue that he suffers as well.

I think the more important aspect of this suit will be the question of what SWA did about it. If they sort of just brushed it off, I could see how claims 3 and 4 have more credibility. We don’t have SWA’s response yet.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Personal knowledge of an incident is not the same as suffering. Is SWA responsible for who married whom? We all suffer sometimes for our choices in partners.

I think the argument would be that she is suffering in some way and that causes him direct damage due to either his suffering or perhaps spousal alienation, etc.

So unless they can get this to the media, which doesn’t appear to be taking it too seriously, it will get thrown out. No evidence, too many feelz, too long to file (all EEOC’s fault).

It was originally filed 10/25/2018 and alleges behavior on 2/17/2017, so about 1 year and 4 months. I don't know the statute of limitations, but probably within them. It was taken a while to work it's way into the federal court.

As I said, I think it depends mostly on what SWA did in response. If they just dismissed her complaints and blew it off, I could see how they might lose on claims 3 & 4. Claim 2 seems like a jury might say ok it was intentional infliction of emotional distress and award $1 feeling this was just an immature practical joke gone bad.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Assuming it was a practical joke gone bad, it seems like the whole thing might have been made to go away if the pilot and co-pilot had immediately apologized to her.

I will also comment that I have to agree with @Shuswap BC , if a joke, this sort of thing would likely get one fired working at a hospital, so not clear why SWA would tolerate it without some type of reprimand and apology.

Speculating here, but perhaps the mistake that made this turn into a lawsuit was the response of the first layer of SWA management. Imagine how much a manager sort of laughing this off as 'boys will be boys' and an attempt to shame her for not getting the well known joke could inflame her.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I thought the husband is claiming damages because of the increased number of “audits” he was subject to in the immediate period after the incident as opposed to the preceding two years.

The husband is named in claim 2 (emotional distress) and claim 4 (retaliation). In claim 4 it states he was subjected to 5 audits in a few months versus 3 in the 24 months preceding the incident. Seems like a pretty significant increase in frequency.

The other allegations of attempts to suppress knowledge of the incident and increased random drug screens also seem concerning for SWA management.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It's great to see the phony media pimp this story from the "victim's" perspective.

Fake story. Fake news. Someone was instructed to publish this in order to cause damage to those involved, IMO.

Well, the claim filed in Maricopa County and Federal District Court is clearly real (just check the docket at the links). Who knows if the suit will go anywhere, but seems arguable.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Another interesting aspect could potentially be if SWA did not preserve the voice recording. Part of claim 2 (intentional infliction of emotional distress) will turn on whether the co-pilot actually stated that the camera was a live stream. Also whether he really did say there were such cameras in all of the new 737s.

If SWA did not preserve the CVR, the plaintiff's attorneys may argue that entitles the plaintiff to an favorable inference on those points. The plaintiff claims she requested that SWA preserve the CVR right after the flight. Of course, SWA would not have known there was going to be a lawsuit at that point, that might well be their counter-argument.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

If the plaintiff's lawyer argued that, she would be wrong. There are a bunch of hoops to jump through before you get a spoliation instruction.

Thanks, I wondered if something like that could or could not apply.

So do you think the plaintiff can make anything of the CVR not being preserved, other than an argument to the jury that it indicates that SWA did not take her seriously?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Ik 04 you may not like the verdict or you are connected to McD, but lets not lie about the legal facts.

Not sure he was lying, in the sense of deliberately making false statements. These sort of urban legends get started and then spread around the Internet. If one doesn’t examine them critically and check them and then repeats them, one ends up misstating the facts.

Thanks for checking the facts and informing us.