Me too.....?
05-01-2018, 08:20 AM
#61
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,275
So whats OO’s responsibility’s??? We have many “Crew conflicts”. Pbs has a bid avoid, but thats it.. how do you control if people bump into each other in the airport ect...??? Seems unmanageable.. i know of a case where someone had a restraining order. (Both of them are at different airlines now). but how does the company inforce that, nonrev travel, work, ect...
But if there's a restraining order, that's not the company's problem... that's the restrainee's problem, and he would need to manage his schedule accordingly, might even have to call off a trip last minute if the restrainer is going to be on it.
05-01-2018, 08:33 AM
#62
Covfefe
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Any lawyer, good or bad, would be able to get the company and FA to freely admit that there is no rank or senior/subordinate relationship while on an overnight. FOMs are pretty clear about duties and responsibilities of each crewmember. In the court of public opinion? Maybe. A jury or judge after a lawyer would present that case? No way.
05-01-2018, 08:38 AM
#63
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,203
Any lawyer, good or bad, would be able to get the company and FA to freely admit that there is no rank or senior/subordinate relationship while on an overnight. FOMs are pretty clear about duties and responsibilities of each crewmember. In the court of public opinion? Maybe. A jury or judge after a lawyer would present that case? No way.
The Supreme Court, in Faragher and Ellerth, reasoned that vicarious liability for supervisor harassment is appropriate because supervisors are aided in such misconduct by the authority that the employers delegated to them.20 Therefore, that authority must be of a sufficient magnitude so as to assist the harasser explicitly or implicitly in carrying out the harassment. The determination as to whether a harasser had such authority is based on his or her job function rather than job title (e.g., “team leader”) and must be based on the specific facts.
An individual qualifies as an employee’s “supervisor” if:
the individual has authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the employee; or
the individual has authority to direct the employee’s daily work activities.
1. Authority to Undertake or Recommend Tangible Employment Actions
An individual qualifies as an employee’s “supervisor” if he or she is authorized to undertake tangible employment decisions affecting the employee. “Tangible employment decisions” are decisions that significantly change another employee’s employment status. (For a detailed explanation of what constitutes a tangible employment action, see subsection IV(B), below.) Such actions include, but are not limited to, hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, and reassigning the employee. As the Supreme Court stated,“[t]angible employment actions fall within the special province of the supervisor.”21
An individual whose job responsibilities include the authority to recommend tangible job decisions affecting an employee qualifies as his or her supervisor even if the individual does not have the final say. As the Supreme Court recognized in Ellerth, a tangible employment decision “may be subject to review by higher level supervisors.”22 As long as the individual’s recommendation is given substantial weight by the final decision maker(s), that individual meets the definition of supervisor.
2. Authority to Direct Employee’s Daily Work Activities
An individual who is authorized to direct another employee’s day-to-day work activities qualifies as his or her supervisor even if that individual does not have the authority to undertake or recommend tangible job decisions. Such an individual’s ability to commit harassment is enhanced by his or her authority to increase the employee’s workload or assign undesirable tasks, and hence it is appropriate to consider such a person a “supervisor” when determining whether the employer is vicariously liable.
In Faragher, one of the harassers was authorized to hire, supervise, counsel, and discipline lifeguards, while the other harasser was responsible for making the lifeguards’ daily work assignments and supervising their work and fitness training.23 There was no question that the Court viewed them both as “supervisors,” even though one of them apparently lacked authority regarding tangible job decisions.24
An individual who is temporarily authorized to direct another employee’s daily work activities qualifies as his or her “supervisor” during that time period. Accordingly, the employer would be subject to vicarious liability if that individual commits unlawful harassment of a subordinate while serving as his or her supervisor.
On the other hand, someone who merely relays other officials’ instructions regarding work assignments and reports back to those officials does not have true supervisory authority. Furthermore, someone who directs only a limited number of tasks or assignments would not qualify as a “supervisor.” For example, an individual whose delegated authority is confined to coordinating a work project of limited scope is not a “supervisor.”
B. Harasser Outside Supervisory Chain of Command
In some circumstances, an employer may be subject to vicarious liability for harassment by a supervisor who does not have actual authority over the employee. Such a result is appropriate if the employee reasonably believed that the harasser had such power.25 The employee might have such a belief because, for example, the chains of command are unclear. Alternatively, the employee might reasonably believe that a harasser with broad delegated powers has the ability to significantly influence employment decisions affecting him or her even if the harasser is outside the employee’s chain of command.
If the harasser had no actual supervisory power over the employee, and the employee did not reasonably believe that the harasser had such authority, then the standard of liability for co-worker harassment applies.
An individual qualifies as an employee’s “supervisor” if:
the individual has authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the employee; or
the individual has authority to direct the employee’s daily work activities.
1. Authority to Undertake or Recommend Tangible Employment Actions
An individual qualifies as an employee’s “supervisor” if he or she is authorized to undertake tangible employment decisions affecting the employee. “Tangible employment decisions” are decisions that significantly change another employee’s employment status. (For a detailed explanation of what constitutes a tangible employment action, see subsection IV(B), below.) Such actions include, but are not limited to, hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, and reassigning the employee. As the Supreme Court stated,“[t]angible employment actions fall within the special province of the supervisor.”21
An individual whose job responsibilities include the authority to recommend tangible job decisions affecting an employee qualifies as his or her supervisor even if the individual does not have the final say. As the Supreme Court recognized in Ellerth, a tangible employment decision “may be subject to review by higher level supervisors.”22 As long as the individual’s recommendation is given substantial weight by the final decision maker(s), that individual meets the definition of supervisor.
2. Authority to Direct Employee’s Daily Work Activities
An individual who is authorized to direct another employee’s day-to-day work activities qualifies as his or her supervisor even if that individual does not have the authority to undertake or recommend tangible job decisions. Such an individual’s ability to commit harassment is enhanced by his or her authority to increase the employee’s workload or assign undesirable tasks, and hence it is appropriate to consider such a person a “supervisor” when determining whether the employer is vicariously liable.
In Faragher, one of the harassers was authorized to hire, supervise, counsel, and discipline lifeguards, while the other harasser was responsible for making the lifeguards’ daily work assignments and supervising their work and fitness training.23 There was no question that the Court viewed them both as “supervisors,” even though one of them apparently lacked authority regarding tangible job decisions.24
An individual who is temporarily authorized to direct another employee’s daily work activities qualifies as his or her “supervisor” during that time period. Accordingly, the employer would be subject to vicarious liability if that individual commits unlawful harassment of a subordinate while serving as his or her supervisor.
On the other hand, someone who merely relays other officials’ instructions regarding work assignments and reports back to those officials does not have true supervisory authority. Furthermore, someone who directs only a limited number of tasks or assignments would not qualify as a “supervisor.” For example, an individual whose delegated authority is confined to coordinating a work project of limited scope is not a “supervisor.”
B. Harasser Outside Supervisory Chain of Command
In some circumstances, an employer may be subject to vicarious liability for harassment by a supervisor who does not have actual authority over the employee. Such a result is appropriate if the employee reasonably believed that the harasser had such power.25 The employee might have such a belief because, for example, the chains of command are unclear. Alternatively, the employee might reasonably believe that a harasser with broad delegated powers has the ability to significantly influence employment decisions affecting him or her even if the harasser is outside the employee’s chain of command.
If the harasser had no actual supervisory power over the employee, and the employee did not reasonably believe that the harasser had such authority, then the standard of liability for co-worker harassment applies.
Last edited by Excargodog; 05-01-2018 at 09:06 AM. Reason: Add URL
05-01-2018, 10:36 AM
#64
Covfefe
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
You're right. It's not. Now, let me break what you copied and pasted down. Because it shows you are incorrect. Then, I'm disengaging. Can't fix _____, and it isn't worth arguing. In bold are the applicable parts. In red is my commentary.
It cannot be more clear by what you yourself have pasted here that there is no CA authority or supervisor status on an overnight. If you can't see that, well, I feel bad for you and your lack of reading/comprehension skills.
Also, if it were inappropriate for a CA to nail an FA, it would explicitly state as much in an employee handbook, code of ethics, FOM, etc., since it happens so often. Clearly it doesn't at any airline that I'm aware of.
The Supreme Court...snip... The determination as to whether a harasser had such authority is based on his or her job function rather than job title (e.g., “team leader”) and must be based on the specific facts.
An individual qualifies as an employee’s “supervisor” if:
the individual has authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the employee; or
the individual has authority to direct the employee’s daily work activities.
1. Authority to Undertake or Recommend Tangible Employment Actions
An individual qualifies as an employee’s “supervisor” if he or she is authorized to undertake tangible employment decisions affecting the employee. “Tangible employment decisions” are decisions that significantly change another employee’s employment status. (For a detailed explanation of what constitutes a tangible employment action, see subsection IV(B), below.) Such actions include, but are not limited to, hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, and reassigning the employee. As the Supreme Court stated,“[t]angible employment actions fall within the special province of the supervisor.”21
As I said before, CAs do not fit this category with respect to FAs. CAs don't hire/fire/promote/demote/reassign anyone.
An individual whose job responsibilities include the authority to recommend tangible job decisions affecting an employee qualifies as his or her supervisor even if the individual does not have the final say. As the Supreme Court recognized in Ellerth, a tangible employment decision “may be subject to review by higher level supervisors.”22 As long as the individual’s recommendation is given substantial weight by the final decision maker(s), that individual meets the definition of supervisor.
2. Authority to Direct Employee’s Daily Work Activities
An individual who is authorized to direct another employee’s day-to-day work activities qualifies as his or her supervisor even if that individual does not have the authority to undertake or recommend tangible job decisions. Such an individual’s ability to commit harassment is enhanced by his or her authority to increase the employee’s workload or assign undesirable tasks, and hence it is appropriate to consider such a person a “supervisor” when determining whether the employer is vicariously liable.
In Faragher, one of the harassers was authorized to hire, supervise, counsel, and discipline lifeguards, while the other harasser was responsible for making the lifeguards’ daily work assignments and supervising their work and fitness training.23 There was no question that the Court viewed them both as “supervisors,” even though one of them apparently lacked authority regarding tangible job decisions.24
An individual who is temporarily authorized to direct another employee’s daily work activities qualifies as his or her “supervisor” during that time period. See, only applies during work. Accordingly, the employer would be subject to vicarious liability if that individual commits unlawful harassment of a subordinate while serving as his or her supervisor.
On the other hand, someone who merely relays other officials’ instructions regarding work assignments and reports back to those officials does not have true supervisory authority. Furthermore, someone who directs only a limited number of tasks or assignments would not qualify as a “supervisor.” Assigning tasks to FAs is limited to preflight/flight duties. Again, doesn't fit this definition.For example, an individual whose delegated authority is confined to coordinating a work project of limited scope is not a “supervisor.”
B. Harasser Outside Supervisory Chain of Command
In some circumstances, an employer may be subject to vicarious liability for harassment by a supervisor who does not have actual authority over the employee. Such a result is appropriate if the employee reasonably believed that the harasser had such power.25 The employee might have such a belief because, for example, the chains of command are unclear. Alternatively, the employee might reasonably believe that a harasser with broad delegated powers has the ability to significantly influence employment decisions affecting him or her even if the harasser is outside the employee’s chain of command.I don't know of any FA I've ever met who thinks a CA could get an FA fired, except for standard reporting of any safety, illegal, or other egregious act that any employee would report. More importantly, I don't know of any FA who would think that a CA has the power to fire an FA, with the exception of a management flight ops pilot.
If the harasser had no actual supervisory power over the employee, and the employee did not reasonably believe that the harasser had such authority, then the standard of liability for co-worker harassment applies.None of the supervisor definitions fit...as I said before...it is 2 employees on an overnight. No fraternization or inappropriate relationship occurred.
An individual qualifies as an employee’s “supervisor” if:
the individual has authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the employee; or
the individual has authority to direct the employee’s daily work activities.
1. Authority to Undertake or Recommend Tangible Employment Actions
An individual qualifies as an employee’s “supervisor” if he or she is authorized to undertake tangible employment decisions affecting the employee. “Tangible employment decisions” are decisions that significantly change another employee’s employment status. (For a detailed explanation of what constitutes a tangible employment action, see subsection IV(B), below.) Such actions include, but are not limited to, hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, and reassigning the employee. As the Supreme Court stated,“[t]angible employment actions fall within the special province of the supervisor.”21
As I said before, CAs do not fit this category with respect to FAs. CAs don't hire/fire/promote/demote/reassign anyone.
An individual whose job responsibilities include the authority to recommend tangible job decisions affecting an employee qualifies as his or her supervisor even if the individual does not have the final say. As the Supreme Court recognized in Ellerth, a tangible employment decision “may be subject to review by higher level supervisors.”22 As long as the individual’s recommendation is given substantial weight by the final decision maker(s), that individual meets the definition of supervisor.
2. Authority to Direct Employee’s Daily Work Activities
An individual who is authorized to direct another employee’s day-to-day work activities qualifies as his or her supervisor even if that individual does not have the authority to undertake or recommend tangible job decisions. Such an individual’s ability to commit harassment is enhanced by his or her authority to increase the employee’s workload or assign undesirable tasks, and hence it is appropriate to consider such a person a “supervisor” when determining whether the employer is vicariously liable.
In Faragher, one of the harassers was authorized to hire, supervise, counsel, and discipline lifeguards, while the other harasser was responsible for making the lifeguards’ daily work assignments and supervising their work and fitness training.23 There was no question that the Court viewed them both as “supervisors,” even though one of them apparently lacked authority regarding tangible job decisions.24
An individual who is temporarily authorized to direct another employee’s daily work activities qualifies as his or her “supervisor” during that time period. See, only applies during work. Accordingly, the employer would be subject to vicarious liability if that individual commits unlawful harassment of a subordinate while serving as his or her supervisor.
On the other hand, someone who merely relays other officials’ instructions regarding work assignments and reports back to those officials does not have true supervisory authority. Furthermore, someone who directs only a limited number of tasks or assignments would not qualify as a “supervisor.” Assigning tasks to FAs is limited to preflight/flight duties. Again, doesn't fit this definition.For example, an individual whose delegated authority is confined to coordinating a work project of limited scope is not a “supervisor.”
B. Harasser Outside Supervisory Chain of Command
In some circumstances, an employer may be subject to vicarious liability for harassment by a supervisor who does not have actual authority over the employee. Such a result is appropriate if the employee reasonably believed that the harasser had such power.25 The employee might have such a belief because, for example, the chains of command are unclear. Alternatively, the employee might reasonably believe that a harasser with broad delegated powers has the ability to significantly influence employment decisions affecting him or her even if the harasser is outside the employee’s chain of command.I don't know of any FA I've ever met who thinks a CA could get an FA fired, except for standard reporting of any safety, illegal, or other egregious act that any employee would report. More importantly, I don't know of any FA who would think that a CA has the power to fire an FA, with the exception of a management flight ops pilot.
If the harasser had no actual supervisory power over the employee, and the employee did not reasonably believe that the harasser had such authority, then the standard of liability for co-worker harassment applies.None of the supervisor definitions fit...as I said before...it is 2 employees on an overnight. No fraternization or inappropriate relationship occurred.
Also, if it were inappropriate for a CA to nail an FA, it would explicitly state as much in an employee handbook, code of ethics, FOM, etc., since it happens so often. Clearly it doesn't at any airline that I'm aware of.
05-01-2018, 11:04 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 896
You're right. It's not. Now, let me break what you copied and pasted down. Because it shows you are incorrect. Then, I'm disengaging. Can't fix _____, and it isn't worth arguing. In bold are the applicable parts. In red is my commentary.
It cannot be more clear by what you yourself have pasted here that there is no CA authority or supervisor status on an overnight. If you can't see that, well, I feel bad for you and your lack of reading/comprehension skills.
Also, if it were inappropriate for a CA to nail an FA, it would explicitly state as much in an employee handbook, code of ethics, FOM, etc., since it happens so often. Clearly it doesn't at any airline that I'm aware of.
It cannot be more clear by what you yourself have pasted here that there is no CA authority or supervisor status on an overnight. If you can't see that, well, I feel bad for you and your lack of reading/comprehension skills.
Also, if it were inappropriate for a CA to nail an FA, it would explicitly state as much in an employee handbook, code of ethics, FOM, etc., since it happens so often. Clearly it doesn't at any airline that I'm aware of.
Both of them were idiots. The CA should have never been alone with and had relations with her and she is irresponsible getting blackout drunk. There are many more details that we will never know on this forum.
All I can say is avoid situations like this. Don't get drunk on layovers, don't fraternize, don't be alone with a co-worker of the opposite sex in a hotel room. Protect yourself, don't throw away your career, marriage, family, or anything else away for one night of "fun"
05-01-2018, 11:11 AM
#66
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,203
You're right. It's not. Now, let me break what you copied and pasted down. Because it shows you are incorrect. Then, I'm disengaging. Can't fix _____, and it isn't worth arguing. In bold are the applicable parts. In red is my commentary.
It cannot be more clear by what you yourself have pasted here that there is no CA authority or supervisor status on an overnight. If you can't see that, well, I feel bad for you and your lack of reading/comprehension skills.
Also, if it were inappropriate for a CA to nail an FA, it would explicitly state as much in an employee handbook, code of ethics, FOM, etc., since it happens so often. Clearly it doesn't at any airline that I'm aware of.
It cannot be more clear by what you yourself have pasted here that there is no CA authority or supervisor status on an overnight. If you can't see that, well, I feel bad for you and your lack of reading/comprehension skills.
Also, if it were inappropriate for a CA to nail an FA, it would explicitly state as much in an employee handbook, code of ethics, FOM, etc., since it happens so often. Clearly it doesn't at any airline that I'm aware of.
And you believe that as long as it doesn't "explicitly state " in company documentation that it is "inappropriate for a Ca to nail an FA," that it is your constitutional right to do so? Or that the company won't get vicarious liability if the woman alleges assault on a trip that they scheduled both of you to be on as a condition of employment in a hotel room that they are paying for?
You aren't in denial. You are delusional.
Last edited by Excargodog; 05-01-2018 at 11:21 AM.
05-01-2018, 11:39 AM
#67
Covfefe
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
So you are saying that at no point in a flight does the captain have any authority over the FA whatever? in the flight...yes. I’ve said that repeatedly. He didn’t have relations with her in the flight. It was off duty, where he has no supervisory authority over an FA. That he has no input whatever into what she does and how she does it? Reread what that case you cited stated...he temporarily has supervisory authority over her, and it exists only in flight while he is the pilot in command. That's going to be a tough sell. no it’s not, if you have any sort of reading comprehension ability.
And you believe that as long as it doesn't "explicitly state " in company documentation that it is "inappropriate for a Ca to nail an FA," that it is your constitutional right to do so? constitutional right? It’s not in the constitution. But legally, or according to company policy, pilots are not prohibited from having any sexual (or other) relations with flight attendants. Or that the company won't get vicarious liability if the woman alleges assault on a trip that they scheduled both of you to be on as a condition of employment in a hotel room that they are paying for? They could be found to have liability, or they could settle and no one will ever know how it would play out. I don’t know the details of the case. You’ll notice the only thing I’ve argued since (unfortunately) stumbling into the SkyWest thread was that pilots are fully allowed to hook up with flight attendants, and have no supervisory authority over FAs on overnights.
You aren't in denial. You are delusional.
And you believe that as long as it doesn't "explicitly state " in company documentation that it is "inappropriate for a Ca to nail an FA," that it is your constitutional right to do so? constitutional right? It’s not in the constitution. But legally, or according to company policy, pilots are not prohibited from having any sexual (or other) relations with flight attendants. Or that the company won't get vicarious liability if the woman alleges assault on a trip that they scheduled both of you to be on as a condition of employment in a hotel room that they are paying for? They could be found to have liability, or they could settle and no one will ever know how it would play out. I don’t know the details of the case. You’ll notice the only thing I’ve argued since (unfortunately) stumbling into the SkyWest thread was that pilots are fully allowed to hook up with flight attendants, and have no supervisory authority over FAs on overnights.
You aren't in denial. You are delusional.
05-01-2018, 06:48 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 180
I could maybe believe that a jury could be convinced that a CA wasn’t a supervisor after the trip had ended...maybe. Though there is still a good possibility that that FA would be assigned a trip with the same CA in the future.
During the trip though, you’ll never sell that. A supervisor is still the supervisor after hours. If your boss calls you at home, he’s still the boss, not your buddy who you can feel free to tell to F off.
In reality, I agree that CAs exercise very little influence over what FAs do or don’t do at work, but I doubt that would matter to a jury, as the buck does stop with the CA. Also, while a CA may not make hiring or firing decisions, a call from a CA to the lead FA with a complaint could be very serious for the FA as their employment is a lot more tenuous than a pilot’s. Certainly an FA could be reasonably concerned about that possibility. That’s all that’s required under that statute.
I agree with the posters above though...whether he’s guilty or innocent, he’s completely screwed either way. A cautionary tale, certainly.
During the trip though, you’ll never sell that. A supervisor is still the supervisor after hours. If your boss calls you at home, he’s still the boss, not your buddy who you can feel free to tell to F off.
In reality, I agree that CAs exercise very little influence over what FAs do or don’t do at work, but I doubt that would matter to a jury, as the buck does stop with the CA. Also, while a CA may not make hiring or firing decisions, a call from a CA to the lead FA with a complaint could be very serious for the FA as their employment is a lot more tenuous than a pilot’s. Certainly an FA could be reasonably concerned about that possibility. That’s all that’s required under that statute.
I agree with the posters above though...whether he’s guilty or innocent, he’s completely screwed either way. A cautionary tale, certainly.
05-02-2018, 04:29 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,145
This will never get to a jury because SkyWest will settle. This article was planned to let SkyWest know the plaintiff and her attorney are serious.
05-02-2018, 06:47 AM
#70
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,203
Were the CA and FA receiving per diem or not from the company on the entirety of the trip?
We're the CA and FA or were they not making use of hotel accommodations that the company wrote off as a business expense on the company tax statement?
Were they or were they not on a trip rig at the time this happened?
By DOL standards, they are "on the clock" until released from duty at their own domicile.
It's not even a hard call.
Last edited by Excargodog; 05-02-2018 at 07:09 AM.
