https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ught-back/

Here is the sentence that jumped out at me. The logic fails at the first hint of reading comprehension. She objected on safety grounds some Delta procedures. In a Stalinist response their 'hired gun' psychiatsit more or less declared her insane. Law suits ensued. All in her favor

“We should consider whether a Section 15 is appropriate,” Graham wrote. “If she cannot embrace and understand the reasons behind our actions, it stands to reason she might not be able to make appropriate decisions for the safe operation of a flight.”

It's unreal how Delta acted here. It's definitely conspiracy on their part.

If you read the court transcript and testimony, Petit was pushing for changes at Delta that were based on her independently acquired safety credentials, but that didn't have support of safety officials within Delta, and were clearly outside her role as a pilot.

She pushed far beyond that role, was highly animated and insistent in the meetings, and wouldn't accept their responses. That is what triggered the recommendation for mental health evaluation.

What happened afterwards with the psychiatrist was wrong, and she deserves to be compensated for that. But the characterization that it was some kind of Delta vendetta is not really true.

Delta has been fighting this to maintain their ability to remove a line pilot from duty if they are concerned about mental health. But they definitely have some liability for not vetting the reports they received from the psychiatrist, which they accepted without challenge.

Avatar2go wrote:

and were clearly outside her role as a pilot.

Is safety not the paramount role of everyone in aerospace and aviation?

Avatar2go wrote:

But the characterization that it was some kind of Delta vendetta is not really true.

They got a (now former) psychiatrist to state that she had bi-polar disorder, when she clearly didn't, specifically because they didn't want to have to listen to her concerns.

Whether she could be disagreeable in meetings or via email is really not the point, nor is whether or not her concerns were valid. You don't get someone diagnosed as unfit to fly due to mental issues, because you don't like them or disagree with them.

Avatar2go wrote:

If you read the court transcript and testimony, Petit was pushing for changes at Delta that were based on her independently acquired safety credentials, but that didn't have support of safety officials within Delta, and were clearly outside her role as a pilot.

If you can back up your beliefs in safety shortfalls and need for change then it doesn't matter what your actual role is in the company. A strong aviation safety culture is built on the ability to speak about safety period.

Sure, she can't enact the change necessary if it is outside her own department but that doesn't mean you just give up and stop pushing for improvements.

This is a rare example where a policy that was made for good did not go well and we still don't know all the details. A $500K settlement is really not that much (minus attorney fees). The airlines should be able to remove any pilot from the air if they feel mental health is an issue at anytime in the interest of public safety.

vikkyvik wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

and were clearly outside her role as a pilot.

Is safety not the paramount role of everyone in aerospace and aviation?

Avatar2go wrote:

But the characterization that it was some kind of Delta vendetta is not really true.

They got a (now former) psychiatrist to state that she had bi-polar disorder, when she clearly didn't, specifically because they didn't want to have to listen to her concerns.

Whether she could be disagreeable in meetings or via email is really not the point, nor is whether or not her concerns were valid. You don't get someone diagnosed as unfit to fly due to mental issues, because you don't like them or disagree with them.

No, this again is not a truthful characterization. I'd strongly recommend you read the transcripts, to get an idea of what actually went on.

Everyone at Delta did listen to her, right up to meetings with Dickson and Graham, who were VP's. But she in turn would not listen to them, would not accept or consider the evidence they provided, and was combative and emotional in the meetings. That behavior is absolutely something that would raise concerns for a pilot.

Dickson testified that they were looking for ways to address the issue that would benefit her. They were not trying to get rid of her. Their expectation was that she would complete the evaluation and any prescribed therapy, and then return to line duty, in a calmer and more settled state.

The psychiatrist was hired as an independent consultant, specifically so that the evaluation would not be in Delta's hands. But what developed was a bizarre contest of wills. His behavior was expressly not that of a mental health professional. You can't compete with your patient.

He tried to look up safety information on his own, to persuade her that her perception of the issue was wrong. But she was far better informed than him, and basically won all their arguments. He responded to that by diagnosing her behavior as manic, since she again was quite animated in their discussions. But he was making things worse, rather than helping her deal with that behavior.

In the end, she just had to accept that Delta's safety assessment was valid, even if different than her own. She eventually did, but not because of her experience with the psychiatrist, which was a disaster.

GlobalAirways wrote:

This is a rare example where a policy that was made for good did not go well and we still don't know all the details. A $500K settlement is really not that much (minus attorney fees). The airlines should be able to remove any pilot from the air if they feel mental health is an issue at anytime in the interest of public safety.

She receives a settlement of $500k plus DL paying for all the attorney fees.

Disgusting that there appears to be no significant consequences for those responsible for this.

Management in companies with safety critical operations should be licensed, just like pilots are. Such actions, where people might feel that raising safety related concerns with management could get them vindictively diagnosed as 'crazy' and sebsequently let go, are not conducive to an open safety culture.

zkojq wrote:

Disgusting that there appears to be no significant consequences for those responsible for this.

Management in companies with safety critical operations should be licensed, just like pilots are. Such actions, where people might feel that raising safety related concerns with management could get them vindictively diagnosed as 'crazy' and sebsequently let go, are not conducive to an open safety culture.

Licensed as what and by whom?

zkojq wrote:

Disgusting that there appears to be no significant consequences for those responsible for this.

Management in companies with safety critical operations should be licensed, just like pilots are. Such actions, where people might feel that raising safety related concerns with management could get them vindictively diagnosed as 'crazy' and sebsequently let go, are not conducive to an open safety culture.

That's not what happened. She was asked to undergo an independent mental health evaluation, which she agreed to do. No loss of salary or benefits.

She did incur loss of flight hours, which in the Delta pay structure, results in loss of potential lifetime earnings through delayed promotion, as well as extra pay for extra flights during that period. She has been compensated for that now.

Things went off the rails with the psychiatrist, for which Delta had some responsibility in not questioning the diagnosis. Once they had that in hand, they could not just disregard it, to reinstate her. They could have done more at that point to get a second opinion. But there was no intent to inflict harm.

Three different courts agreed she was treated wrong. The doctor involved gave up his medical license because of his actions.

These people have more data than us.

That's serious evidence she was treated wrong.

(If you want to argue the system was rigged go ahead.)

Avatar2go wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Disgusting that there appears to be no significant consequences for those responsible for this.

Management in companies with safety critical operations should be licensed, just like pilots are. Such actions, where people might feel that raising safety related concerns with management could get them vindictively diagnosed as 'crazy' and sebsequently let go, are not conducive to an open safety culture.

That's not what happened. She was asked to undergo an independent mental health evaluation, which she agreed to do. No loss of salary or benefits.

She did incur loss of flight hours, which in the Delta pay structure, results in loss of potential lifetime earnings through delayed promotion, as well as extra pay for extra flights during that period. She has been compensated for that now.

Things went off the rails with the psychiatrist, for which Delta had some responsibility in not questioning the diagnosis. Once they had that in hand, they could not just disregard it, to reinstate her. They could have done more at that point to get a second opinion. But there was no intent to inflict harm.

The team of doctors at The Mayo Clinic AND three different courts disagree with your take on things. They all believe this was a concerted effort to push her out of her job. They found evidence that suggested just that. Deltas attorneys, and the quack doctor they use to sabotage people’s careers, all fought this and lost. Do you really think you can present a compelling case?

Avatar2go wrote:

If you read the court transcript and testimony, Petit was pushing for changes at Delta that were based on her independently acquired safety credentials, but that didn't have support of safety officials within Delta, and were clearly outside her role as a pilot.

She pushed far beyond that role, was highly animated and insistent in the meetings, and wouldn't accept their responses. That is what triggered the recommendation for mental health evaluation.

What happened afterwards with the psychiatrist was wrong, and she deserves to be compensated for that. But the characterization that it was some kind of Delta vendetta is not really true.

Delta has been fighting this to maintain their ability to remove a line pilot from duty if they are concerned about mental health. But they definitely have some liability for not vetting the reports they received from the psychiatrist, which they accepted without challenge.

I wonder if you would say the same thing had this happened to a male pilot, ie Sully for example.

GlobalAirways wrote:

This is a rare example where a policy that was made for good did not go well and we still don't know all the details. A $500K settlement is really not that much (minus attorney fees). The airlines should be able to remove any pilot from the air if they feel mental health is an issue at anytime in the interest of public safety.

It was $500k PLUS attorney fees. The fact she held multiple degrees, one of which was a PhD in Aviation Safety should have meant that Delta go over her report and suggestions seriously then collaborate with ALPA as to whether the suggestions were warranted and fit in with current work flows.

The diagnosis was completely bogus and 10 psychiatrists trashed Delta's hired gun who retired rather than lose his license.

Delta really does a great job at pretending it is a people first airline. They remain the best airline in the US, but that doesn't mean they have no issues. Such a shame to see them consistently fight for what's wrong when it comes to staff, unions and competition.

This makes me happy though

Morris awarded Petitt the $500,000 in compensation after considering “not only the harm to her reputation, the embarrassment and emotional hardship she has endured over an extended period of time, but also … the realistic loss of future opportunities for promotion.”

He ordered Delta to prominently post copies of his decision at every pilot base, so that its more than 13,000 pilots would be made aware.

Morris also ordered that Petitt be reinstated with the highest wages of any Delta first officer and made whole for the lost time flying.

Delta appealed but lost again. Friday’s settlement ended the case.

Altman later testified that his diagnosis was driven in part by Petitt’s accomplishments. The books, the degrees, the piloting job, all while raising kids, it was “well beyond what any woman I’ve ever met could do” — and therefore suggestive that she was manic.

A line that stands out in an article full of shocking lines... little more needs to be said about why that statement is insane. What year was this guy living in...

In early November of the previous year, she had sent emails to her superiors criticizing Delta’s safety culture, initiating a series of interactions with them about safety issues.

Just six days later, captain Jim Graham, then Delta’s vice president of flight operations, in an email to a pilot manager under him, indicated clearly his intention to put a stop to Petitt’s critique and to do so using a Kafkaesque process called a “Section 15,” which would label her too mentally unstable to be a pilot.

“We should consider whether a Section 15 is appropriate,” Graham wrote. “If she cannot embrace and understand the reasons behind our actions, it stands to reason she might not be able to make appropriate decisions for the safe operation of a flight.”

Shame on Delta for this. An intensely anti-labor company flexing all of the worst powers afforded to it by our all-too corporation-friendly system.

Go so far out of your way promoting a safety culture that encourages people to speak up about concerns they have -- until they actually do. Then within days you respond by taking steps to label them mentally unstable to quiet them down. Not even that shocking given the way our corporations operate in the states. It's just the level of hypocrisy that's depressing.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

GlobalAirways wrote:

This is a rare example where a policy that was made for good did not go well and we still don't know all the details. A $500K settlement is really not that much (minus attorney fees). The airlines should be able to remove any pilot from the air if they feel mental health is an issue at anytime in the interest of public safety.

It was $500k PLUS attorney fees. The fact she held multiple degrees, one of which was a PhD in Aviation Safety should have meant that Delta go over her report and suggestions seriously then collaborate with ALPA as to whether the suggestions were warranted and fit in with current work flows.

The diagnosis was completely bogus and 10 psychiatrists trashed Delta's hired gun who retired rather than lose his license.

I get the $500K and the attorneys fees, but slander and defamation lawsuits like this can settle for way more... There's something more about this that we aren't getting. Please don't be mistaken, I don't think the way this instance was handled by Delta and their Psychiatrist with a 1950's misogynistic attitude was right.

ASFlyer wrote:

The team of doctors at The Mayo Clinic AND three different courts disagree with your take on things. They all believe this was a concerted effort to push her out of her job. They found evidence that suggested just that. Deltas attorneys, and the quack doctor they use to sabotage people’s careers, all fought this and lost. Do you really think you can present a compelling case?

Medical doctors cannot conclude that Delta tried to force her out. What they concluded was that the psychiatrist's diagnosis was badly wrong. No one is disputing that.

Nor did the courts rule that Delta tried to force her out. They ruled that she was entitled to compensation based on the false diagnosis, and the improper manner and procedure with which Delta treated her after it was made. Again that is it not disputed.

The testimony in the case makes clear that this began with Petit's behavior in pressing her safety concerns. It was not simply a case of Delta not wanting to listen to safety issues, or trying to boot her out. Any one who believes that, has not read the testimony.

She met with the two VP's in charge of pilots and safety in the company, after progressing up the chain of command without being able to make her case to any of their subordinates. After that meeting, in which she reacted angrily to the points they made in opposition, she began demanding a meeting with the CEO, and trying to intercept him at other meetings. That is partly what triggered the mental health concerns. She was obsessed with her ideas and her new safety degree, and wasn't going to stop, despite exhausting all the options available to her.

In response to this, they asked her to undergo a mental health evaluation, which she agreed to do. The outcome of that was not predetermined, as has been implied here.

Again I'm not defending what happened to her, or denying that she deserves the court to rule in her favor, or to award compensation. But the notion that Delta tried to flush out a whistleblower is just not a truthful characterization, as I noted.

ASFlyer wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Disgusting that there appears to be no significant consequences for those responsible for this.

Management in companies with safety critical operations should be licensed, just like pilots are. Such actions, where people might feel that raising safety related concerns with management could get them vindictively diagnosed as 'crazy' and sebsequently let go, are not conducive to an open safety culture.

That's not what happened. She was asked to undergo an independent mental health evaluation, which she agreed to do. No loss of salary or benefits.

She did incur loss of flight hours, which in the Delta pay structure, results in loss of potential lifetime earnings through delayed promotion, as well as extra pay for extra flights during that period. She has been compensated for that now.

Things went off the rails with the psychiatrist, for which Delta had some responsibility in not questioning the diagnosis. Once they had that in hand, they could not just disregard it, to reinstate her. They could have done more at that point to get a second opinion. But there was no intent to inflict harm.

The team of doctors at The Mayo Clinic AND three different courts disagree with your take on things. They all believe this was a concerted effort to push her out of her job. They found evidence that suggested just that. Deltas attorneys, and the quack doctor they use to sabotage people’s careers, all fought this and lost. Do you really think you can present a compelling case?

It's pretty obvious Constructive Dismissal.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

The fact she held multiple degrees, one of which was a PhD in Aviation Safety should have meant that Delta go over her report and suggestions seriously then collaborate with ALPA as to whether the suggestions were warranted and fit in with current work flows.

A few points. First, she had just acquired the safety degree, which she obtained on the side while pursuing her pilot career. She felt that entitled her to challenge the company on safety issues at the highest level. Second, she did involve the union but they were noncommittal on her ideas. Third, her ideas were taken seriously and reviewed by Delta, at multiple levels. They just didn't agree with her, at any stage.

In fact no one involved, felt that her proposed changes were as significant as she made them out to be. That was part of the mental health issue. They accommodated her continuous requests for escalation, but those ended at the VP level. Delta did not approve of her escalating to the CEO. That's partly what triggered the request for the evaluation.

kitplane01 wrote:

Three different courts agreed she was treated wrong. The doctor involved gave up his medical license because of his actions.

These people have more data than us.

That's serious evidence she was treated wrong.

(If you want to argue the system was rigged go ahead.)

Yes but if it was an independent Doctor not a company one that was hired, so as not having a bent toward Delta vs her. Why is Delta guilty for the Doctor making an error?

zkojq wrote:

Disgusting that there appears to be no significant consequences for those responsible for this.

Management in companies with safety critical operations should be licensed, just like pilots are. Such actions, where people might feel that raising safety related concerns with management could get them vindictively diagnosed as 'crazy' and sebsequently let go, are not conducive to an open safety culture.

The Doctor responsible for the diagnosis made the mistake and lost his license. So yes the responsible party suffered consequences. If you think Delta is at fault after they hired a licensed Doctor and accepted his diagnosis, as Delta employees were not doctors. Then you need to rethink the comment. Delta employees have no standing to ignore a doctors diagnosis as they have no medical training and the hired doctor did!

Avatar2go wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

The team of doctors at The Mayo Clinic AND three different courts disagree with your take on things. They all believe this was a concerted effort to push her out of her job. They found evidence that suggested just that. Deltas attorneys, and the quack doctor they use to sabotage people’s careers, all fought this and lost. Do you really think you can present a compelling case?

Medical doctors cannot conclude that Delta tried to force her out. What they concluded was that the psychiatrist's diagnosis was badly wrong. No one is disputing that.

Nor did the courts rule that Delta tried to force her out. They ruled that she was entitled to compensation based on the false diagnosis, and the improper manner and procedure with which Delta treated her after it was made. Again that is it not disputed.

The testimony in the case makes clear that this began with Petit's behavior in pressing her safety concerns. It was not simply a case of Delta not wanting to listen to safety issues, or trying to boot her out. Any one who believes that, has not read the testimony.

She met with the two VP's in charge of pilots and safety in the company, after progressing up the chain of command without being able to make her case to any of their subordinates. After that meeting, in which she reacted angrily to the points they made in opposition, she began demanding a meeting with the CEO, and trying to intercept him at other meetings. That is partly what triggered the mental health concerns. She was obsessed with her ideas and her new safety degree, and wasn't going to stop, despite exhausting all the options available to her.

In response to this, they asked her to undergo a mental health evaluation, which she agreed to do. The outcome of that was not predetermined, as has been implied here.

Again I'm not defending what happened to her, or denying that she deserves the court to rule in her favor, or to award compensation. But the notion that Delta tried to flush out a whistleblower is just not a truthful characterization, as I noted.

You’re gonna go down defending this, aren’t ya?

ASFlyer wrote:

You’re gonna go down defending this, aren’t ya?

Pretty clearly stated that I wasn't defending what happened to her. I am giving the facts as revealed in the case testimony, which anyone is welcome to read, so that it can be put in the context of actual events.

Those facts make clear that up until the false diagnosis, Delta acted appropriately to address what they perceived as a mental health issue with a pilot. After the diagnosis, the process went into the dumpster, and Delta is paying the cost of that now.

There is much more in the testimony that is indirect evidence of a health issue. I haven't recited that here because it's not relevant to the thread. But she had made other accusations over the course of her career, and in this case as well.

There's a reason why this case has been drawn out over years, and has hundreds of pages of testimony. It's not as simple as is portrayed by the media.

rbavfan wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Three different courts agreed she was treated wrong. The doctor involved gave up his medical license because of his actions.

These people have more data than us.

That's serious evidence she was treated wrong.

(If you want to argue the system was rigged go ahead.)

Yes but if it was an independent Doctor not a company one that was hired, so as not having a bent toward Delta vs her. Why is Delta guilty for the Doctor making an error?

Did you read the article?

Just six days later, captain Jim Graham, then Delta’s vice president of flight operations, in an email to a pilot manager under him, indicated clearly his intention to put a stop to Petitt’s critique and to do so using a Kafkaesque process called a “Section 15,” which would label her too mentally unstable to be a pilot.

“We should consider whether a Section 15 is appropriate,” Graham wrote. “If she cannot embrace and understand the reasons behind our actions, it stands to reason she might not be able to make appropriate decisions for the safe operation of a flight.”

Administrative Law Judge Scott Morris upheld his earlier order characterizing Delta’s use of the psychiatric diagnosis as an abuse of a mental evaluation system in place for cases of last resort.

Morris ruled it “improper for [Delta] to weaponize this process for the purposes of obtaining blind compliance by its pilots.”

That March, Graham pulled the trigger on Section 15 and referred Petitt for a mental health evaluation from Altman, with whom the company had a long relationship. Petitt learned of the diagnosis in the mail that Christmas Eve.

It’s not just about a bad diagnosis from a long Delta collaborator.

Even if she is completely wrong about her points the way Delta handled it is really concerning. From having upper management dictate what they would like to see happen to their HR actually delivering at any cost even if it meant accepting a sloppily written assessment claiming that the pilot must have been ‘manic’ because of her personal and professional successes, is really problematic. Delta has armies of lawyers and highly trained HR people who should have flagged this and redirected the course of things. Instead they got it done at any cost because someone above said so. This sort of complacency is scary and I truly hope does not actually extend to how delta deals with safety issues as the pilot originally claimed.

Delta had its pilots all interviewed by a psychiatrist named Dr. Janus in the 70s and 80s. He had the ultimate authority to deny a pilot being hired. All potential pilots had to sit in a flimsy rocking chair and the question was always whether to rock or not. Dr. Janus committed suicide while still employed at Delta.

gatibosgru wrote:

It’s not just about a bad diagnosis from a long Delta collaborator.

The characterization by Judge Morris of the Section 15 process being "weaponized", is why Delta has fought this so extensively.

The Section 15 designation is a temporary removal from duty pending psychiatric evaluation. It does not mean the pilot cannot return to duty. It's meant as a critical circuit breaker if the person is showing signs of mental difficulty. Which for obvious reasons is important for a pilot. Ideally they will seek help on their own, but the reality is they often don't. The airline needs a mechanism to intervene, in that case.

In Graham's e-mail, he was discussing the result of the meeting with Dickson, where Petit would not accept their decision or their arguments, and demanded to go over their heads to the CEO. Which had been the repetitive pattern with her more immediate superiors. They referred her to HR for counseling, and the HR staff concurred that she was obsessed with this issue, to an unhealthy degree. That is when they began to consider the Section 15.

In other circumstances, Petit might have received counseling to address the obsessive thinking on this issue, and returned to duty. As it happened, the false diagnosis left Delta with the recommendation that she was unfit to fly. Things went downhill from there, as Delta accepted that result and proceeded on that basis.

Dickson testified that although he had no involvement in the communication with the psychiatrist, which all occurred with Graham, he accepted the recommendation and had no reason to doubt it.

Judge Morris, I believe, conflated these two events to infer that the Section 15 was meant by Graham to find her unfit, and was an excessive response. Delta has argued that the Section 15 was an appropriate measure in this case, without prejudice as to the result, or the intent to disqualify Petit.

My largest concern is the fact that an ex-Delta pilot was head of the FAA. I don’t think he should have been involved in any decision concerning her.

Avatar2go wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

You’re gonna go down defending this, aren’t ya?

Pretty clearly stated that I wasn't defending what happened to her. I am giving the facts as revealed in the case testimony, which anyone is welcome to read, so that it can be put in the context of actual events.

Those facts make clear that up until the false diagnosis, Delta acted appropriately to address what they perceived as a mental health issue with a pilot. After the diagnosis, the process went into the dumpster, and Delta is paying the cost of that now.

There is much more in the testimony that is indirect evidence of a health issue. I haven't recited that here because it's not relevant to the thread. But she had made other accusations over the course of her career, and in this case as well.

There's a reason why this case has been drawn out over years, and has hundreds of pages of testimony. It's not as simple as is portrayed by the media.

Uh, no. Try again.

"Judge Morris characterized Dr. Petitt’s stated safety concerns as “prudent and reasonable,” he found that Captain Graham viewed her “tenacity in seeking clarification about her stated safety concerns as somehow problematic.” ... Graham subsequently ordered Dr. Petitt to submit to psychiatric examination, a decision approved by Stephen Dickson. Prompted by its legal counsel Chris Puckett, Delta selected Dr. David B. Altman as the examiner, whom the judge characterized as “merely a tool used by Captain Graham to effectuate a management objective.” ... Judge Morris awarded Dr. Petitt compensatory damages of $500,000 – five times the highest previously recorded award under the whistleblower statute – in recognition of the “severe emotional toll this placed on [Dr. Petitt’s] wellbeing.”

[Judge Morris said] "the evidence does not support presence of a psychiatric diagnosis but does support an organizational/corporate effort to remove this pilot from the rolls... the Tribunal finds less than credible Captain Dickson’s deposition testimony as it found many of his responses evasive … His testimony was of value in understanding the leadership culture at [Delta] and its understanding (or lack thereof) of [Delta’s] management’s role in its safety management program. His emails make it clear that Respondent’s much touted ‘open door policy’ was not as opened as portrayed.”

Two years pay doesn’t sound like an exorbitant amount. Is she flying somewhere else now?

ozark1 wrote:

My largest concern is the fact that an ex-Delta pilot was head of the FAA. I don’t think he should have been involved in any decision concerning her.

He wasn't involved in any decision involving her as head of the FAA. It was before he left Delta.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

You’re gonna go down defending this, aren’t ya?

Pretty clearly stated that I wasn't defending what happened to her. I am giving the facts as revealed in the case testimony, which anyone is welcome to read, so that it can be put in the context of actual events.

Those facts make clear that up until the false diagnosis, Delta acted appropriately to address what they perceived as a mental health issue with a pilot. After the diagnosis, the process went into the dumpster, and Delta is paying the cost of that now.

There is much more in the testimony that is indirect evidence of a health issue. I haven't recited that here because it's not relevant to the thread. But she had made other accusations over the course of her career, and in this case as well.

There's a reason why this case has been drawn out over years, and has hundreds of pages of testimony. It's not as simple as is portrayed by the media.

Uh, no. Try again.

"Judge Morris characterized Dr. Petitt’s stated safety concerns as “prudent and reasonable,” he found that Captain Graham viewed her “tenacity in seeking clarification about her stated safety concerns as somehow problematic.” ... Graham subsequently ordered Dr. Petitt to submit to psychiatric examination, a decision approved by Stephen Dickson. Prompted by its legal counsel Chris Puckett, Delta selected Dr. David B. Altman as the examiner, whom the judge characterized as “merely a tool used by Captain Graham to effectuate a management objective.” ... Judge Morris awarded Dr. Petitt compensatory damages of $500,000 – five times the highest previously recorded award under the whistleblower statute – in recognition of the “severe emotional toll this placed on [Dr. Petitt’s] wellbeing.”

[Judge Morris said] "the evidence does not support presence of a psychiatric diagnosis but does support an organizational/corporate effort to remove this pilot from the rolls... the Tribunal finds less than credible Captain Dickson’s deposition testimony as it found many of his responses evasive … His testimony was of value in understanding the leadership culture at [Delta] and its understanding (or lack thereof) of [Delta’s] management’s role in its safety management program. His emails make it clear that Respondent’s much touted ‘open door policy’ was not as opened as portrayed.”

In any organization, you have the opportunity to express concerns up to the point of a full hearing. But you are obligated to accept the organizational decision, after all the facts are known and expressed. Even if you think it's wrong.

The testimony showed that Petit was granted that several times over, going though her supervisory chain, her union rep, and up through the VPs of Delta. At each stage, she was given a full hearing. She didn't accept any of the company's arguments, evidence, or reasoning, and demanded a meeting with the CEO.

Most organizations have limited tolerance for that behavior. Petit was told, by both Graham and Dickson in the meeting, that they valued her education, her desire for safety, and her ideas, but had decided against these particular requests. They offered her a position on a safety committee so she could continue to contribute.

In response to this, she became upset, and said they were condescending and disrespectful toward her as a woman. That she had experienced this many times at Delta, and that other women had the same experience.

At that point she had made a discrimination claim, so they ended the meeting and instructed her to take her grievance to HR, which is the company policy. In that meeting, the HR rep testified that Petit was animated and upset beyond all reason, for what had ocurred. The HR rep said she found no factual basis for discrimination, in that or any other meeting where Petit's ideas were considered.

None of this is in Judge Morris' ruling, but it's all documented in the testimony. He selected what he felt were the relevant facts, but another reasonable person might consider these facts as well. Delta certainly did.

This is why you have to read the testimony. There are two sides to every story. Based on the court record, I agree with Judge Morris that Petit was mistreated by Delta and deserves compensation. But disagree, based on the total preponderance of the evidence, that Delta was vindictive in their application of Section 15. My view is that they acted appropriately, under the circumstances.

Also disagree with Judge Morris' characterization of Dickson as evasive. Dickson testified he wasn't involved in her evaluation, read the reports, and accepted the recommendations. He said he had no reason to doubt them at the time, but recognizes after reviewing other evaluations, that it was an injustice to Petit.

What Judge Morris was looking for in the hearing, and encouraged plaintiff counsel to question, was an admission by Graham or Dickson that they knew, or at least expected, the Section 15 to be punitive and result in Petit's removal from line duty. Both testified that they agreed on the Section 15 but had no expectation as to the result. That is the part that Judge Morris found evasive and not credible.

The entire case hinges on that issue. Did Delta act reasonably in requesting the section 15? And did they act reasonably in accepting the false diagnosis? My view is yes to the former, and no to the latter.

Avatar2go wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Pretty clearly stated that I wasn't defending what happened to her. I am giving the facts as revealed in the case testimony, which anyone is welcome to read, so that it can be put in the context of actual events.

Those facts make clear that up until the false diagnosis, Delta acted appropriately to address what they perceived as a mental health issue with a pilot. After the diagnosis, the process went into the dumpster, and Delta is paying the cost of that now.

There is much more in the testimony that is indirect evidence of a health issue. I haven't recited that here because it's not relevant to the thread. But she had made other accusations over the course of her career, and in this case as well.

There's a reason why this case has been drawn out over years, and has hundreds of pages of testimony. It's not as simple as is portrayed by the media.

Uh, no. Try again.

"Judge Morris characterized Dr. Petitt’s stated safety concerns as “prudent and reasonable,” he found that Captain Graham viewed her “tenacity in seeking clarification about her stated safety concerns as somehow problematic.” ... Graham subsequently ordered Dr. Petitt to submit to psychiatric examination, a decision approved by Stephen Dickson. Prompted by its legal counsel Chris Puckett, Delta selected Dr. David B. Altman as the examiner, whom the judge characterized as “merely a tool used by Captain Graham to effectuate a management objective.” ... Judge Morris awarded Dr. Petitt compensatory damages of $500,000 – five times the highest previously recorded award under the whistleblower statute – in recognition of the “severe emotional toll this placed on [Dr. Petitt’s] wellbeing.”

[Judge Morris said] "the evidence does not support presence of a psychiatric diagnosis but does support an organizational/corporate effort to remove this pilot from the rolls... the Tribunal finds less than credible Captain Dickson’s deposition testimony as it found many of his responses evasive … His testimony was of value in understanding the leadership culture at [Delta] and its understanding (or lack thereof) of [Delta’s] management’s role in its safety management program. His emails make it clear that Respondent’s much touted ‘open door policy’ was not as opened as portrayed.”

In any organization, you have the opportunity to express concerns up to the point of a full hearing. But you are obligated to accept the organizational decision, after all the facts are known and expressed. Even if you think it's wrong.

The testimony showed that Petit was granted that several times over, going though her supervisory chain, her union rep, and up through the VPs of Delta. At each stage, she was given a full hearing. She didn't accept any of the company's arguments, evidence, or reasoning, and demanded a meeting with the CEO.

Most organizations have limited tolerance for that behavior. Petit was told, by both Graham and Dickson in the meeting, that they valued her education, her desire for safety, and her ideas, but had decided against these particular requests. They offered her a position on a safety committee so she could continue to contribute.

In response to this, she became upset, and said they were condescending and disrespectful toward her as a woman. That she had experienced this many times at Delta, and that other women had the same experience.

At that point she had made a discrimination claim, so they ended the meeting and instructed her to take her grievance to HR, which is the company policy. In that meeting, the HR rep testified that Petit was animated and upset beyond all reason, for what had ocurred. The HR rep said she found no factual basis for discrimination, in that or any other meeting where Petit's ideas were considered.

None of this is in Judge Morris' ruling, but it's all documented in the testimony. He selected what he felt were the relevant facts, but another reasonable person might consider these facts as well. Delta certainly did.

This is why you have to read the testimony. There are two sides to every story. Based on the court record, I agree with Judge Morris that Petit was mistreated by Delta and deserves compensation. But disagree, based on the total preponderance of the evidence, that Delta was vindictive in their application of Section 15. My view is that they acted appropriately, under the circumstances.

Also disagree with Judge Morris' characterization of Dickson as evasive. Dickson testified he wasn't involved in her evaluation, read the reports, and accepted the recommendations. He said he had no reason to doubt them at the time, but recognizes after reviewing other evaluations, that it was an injustice to Petit.

What Judge Morris was looking for in the hearing, and encouraged plaintiff counsel to question, was an admission by Graham or Dickson that they knew, or at least expected, the Section 15 to be punitive and result in Petit's removal from line duty. Both testified that they agreed on the Section 15 but had no expectation as to the result. That is the part that Judge Morris found evasive and not credible.

The entire case hinges on that issue. Did Delta act reasonably in requesting the section 15? And did they act reasonably in accepting the false diagnosis? My view is yes to the former, and no to the latter.

And you are clearly only choosing Delta’s position.

Seems you are biased against her.

And you can’t read credibility by only reading the transcript.

Were you in the courtroom?

Boof02671 wrote:

And you are clearly only choosing Delta’s position.

Seems you are biased against her.

And you can’t read credibility by only reading the transcript.

Were you in the courtroom?

Very clearly am not choosing only Delta's side. Have repeatedly stated I agree with the decision to award compensation. However the facts omitted from the ruling, but present in the testimony, are also important in understanding the context of what actually ocurred.

Similarly, have said Petit was mistreated by Delta, and explained how and why. As mentioned, there is a lot more evidence of behavior in the testimony that I have not recounted here, because of relevance, and in her interest.

Also important to understand that in administrative proceedings, Judge Morris is not bound by the normal rules of trial. He is the sole trier of fact, and he participates in the questioning of witnesses, as he did with Dickson. He can take the side of either plaintiff or defendant, as he deems to be fair, in the pursuit of testimony.

The written legal brief is the standard of legal discourse, and the transcripts of what was said in the courtroom are the legal & public record of the proceeding. You do not have to be in the courtroom to understand what occurred, and not being there certainly does not diminish the value of evidence presented.

rbavfan wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Disgusting that there appears to be no significant consequences for those responsible for this.

Management in companies with safety critical operations should be licensed, just like pilots are. Such actions, where people might feel that raising safety related concerns with management could get them vindictively diagnosed as 'crazy' and sebsequently let go, are not conducive to an open safety culture.

The Doctor responsible for the diagnosis made the mistake and lost his license. So yes the responsible party suffered consequences. If you think Delta is at fault after they hired a licensed Doctor and accepted his diagnosis, as Delta employees were not doctors. Then you need to rethink the comment. Delta employees have no standing to ignore a doctors diagnosis as they have no medical training and the hired doctor did!

Once Delta lost a court case or two they might have gotten a second medical opinion.

Delta is surely worldly enough to know that doctors sometimes make mistakes, and second opinions are common.

Avatar2go wrote:

There's a reason why this case has been drawn out over years, and has hundreds of pages of testimony. It's not as simple as is portrayed by the media.

There are plenty of simple cases that drag out for years with hundreds of pages of testimony. Look at defamation cases in any jurisdictions with weak anti-SLAPP laws. This is not good analysis.

Avatar2go wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

And you are clearly only choosing Delta’s position.

Seems you are biased against her.

And you can’t read credibility by only reading the transcript.

Were you in the courtroom?

Very clearly am not choosing only Delta's side. Have repeatedly stated I agree with the decision to award compensation. However the facts omitted from the ruling, but present in the testimony, are also important in understanding the context of what actually ocurred.

Similarly, have said Petit was mistreated by Delta, and explained how and why. As mentioned, there is a lot more evidence of behavior in the testimony that I have not recounted here, because of relevance, and in her interest.

Also important to understand that in administrative proceedings, Judge Morris is not bound by the normal rules of trial. He is the sole trier of fact, and he participates in the questioning of witnesses, as he did with Dickson. He can take the side of either plaintiff or defendant, as he deems to be fair, in the pursuit of testimony.

The written legal brief is the standard of legal discourse, and the transcripts of what was sDL aid in the courtroom are the legal & public record of the proceeding. You do not have to be in the courtroom to understand what occurred, and not being there certainly does not diminish the value of evidence presented.

I've read the facts to this case (this is old news - it was settled nearly two years ago IIRC).

She was complaining loudly about safety. Delta management deemed her to be a problem / nuisance and did something radical to remove her from service, using a company doctor that they knew would play ball with them. They expected that this would silence her - she'd complete her therapy and return to service - but instead she fought backed and sued. That's pretty much the same narrative you're giving - just with a tone that perceives management as innocent. They knew exactly what they were doing... stuff like this happens every single day in corporate America (maybe not to that extremity).

Neither side was completely innocent in this case, however at the end of the day the actions that DL were deemed to be wrong.

There were numerous "off-ramps" both sides could've taken until it got to this point.

tlecam wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

There's a reason why this case has been drawn out over years, and has hundreds of pages of testimony. It's not as simple as is portrayed by the media.

There are plenty of simple cases that drag out for years with hundreds of pages of testimony. Look at defamation cases in any jurisdictions with weak anti-SLAPP laws. This is not good analysis.

I didn't feel like any of the testimony was irrelevant to the case. As mentioned, much of it regarding past behavior, and earlier incidents, to establish a pattern.

The length of the record is another matter, there are dozens of pages devoted to procedural arguments between counsels. Sometimes the witness would be excused for an hour or more while they hashed it out. That's also when things would become heated, with even the judge getting involved. The witness testimony was tame by comparison.

As noted, since the judge can question the witness, there were objections by counsel to some of his questions, leaving the judge to rule on his own question. It's an odd situation as opposed to trial rules.

Anytime a company chooses to take a detrimental action against an employee right after they have come forward to report a safety or ethics concern, the risk of having engaged in prohibited retaliation is high. I imagine that their labor and employment counsel or someone in HR brought up that risk and it was ignored, although based on past professional experience with some of Delta’s HR, I wouldn’t be shocked if the risk wasn’t effectively conveyed. The fact that Delta didn’t just let this one quietly go and acknowledge the errors and bury this years after it became apparent that Dr. Altman’s opinion was so shockingly discriminatory and absurd to result in his disgraced resignation in the face of losing his license, and that two subsequent psychiatric reviews including by a panel at the Mayo Clinic found no problem and skewered Dr. Altman’s competency and motives, is concerning.

It would be interesting to know if any of her Captains and other co-workers had ever reported "issues" prior to this incident. Was this part of Delta's defense?

Meanwhile the 2 that orchestrated the whole thing have moved on to "other jobs". Obviously Dickson went to the FAA, while Jim Graham was given his own little fiefdom of a regional to run, which doesn't seem to be going well for him...

This is one where all sides were guilty of doing the wrong thing.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

I've read the facts to this case (this is old news - it was settled nearly two years ago IIRC).

She was complaining loudly about safety. Delta management deemed her to be a problem / nuisance and did something radical to remove her from service, using a company doctor that they knew would play ball with them. They expected that this would silence her - she'd complete her therapy and return to service - but instead she fought backed and sued. That's pretty much the same narrative you're giving - just with a tone that perceives management as innocent. They knew exactly what they were doing... stuff like this happens every single day in corporate America (maybe not to that extremity).

As I said, the interpretation of motivation is the essence of the case.

I didn't see malicious intent with regard to safety, given the number of opportunities she was provided to speak, meeting with VP's for operations and safety, the offer of the position on the safety committee to give her a voice, etc. They basically tried to channel her energies into a productive outlet, bringing her inside rather than standing outside.

Based on my own experience, I think most people who have gone up against management, would love to have similar opportunities.

The problem arose when she began sending unsolicited email to the CEO, insisting on a meeting. That was really the first time she was denied an opportunity to make her case.

Then when she raised the issue of discrimination, that sent the train down an entirely different track. That's a serious allegation that has serious consequences. And the subsequent HR evaluation of that as baseless, contributed to the Section 15.

Judge Morris ultimately dismissed that aspect of her complaints. But Delta argued it was a factor in her state of mind. I would tend to agree.

As noted, where she did have a valid case is in the false diagnosis and the subsequent resistance from Delta in responding to her complaints about it. They made the assumption that she was objecting as usual, when in fact she was correct on that issue.

vikkyvik wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

and were clearly outside her role as a pilot.

Is safety not the paramount role of everyone in aerospace and aviation?


Unfortunately, No.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It would be interesting to know if any of her Captains and other co-workers had ever reported "issues" prior to this incident. Was this part of Delta's defense?

Yes, Delta offered testimony from her file. She had other conflicts with peers & superiors in the past. However nothing of this magnitude.

The trigger seems to have been her earning of the safety degree, which she believed gave her the authority to challenge Delta. When they disagreed, she saw that as discrimination, since she was credentialed and there was no reason to dispute her recommendations.

She had also raised the discrimination issue in earlier conflicts, but had not complained formally. When she raised it in the VP meeting, they considered it a formal complaint and sent her to HR. That combination is what ultimately touched off the Section 15 decision.

bravoindia wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

and were clearly outside her role as a pilot.

Is safety not the paramount role of everyone in aerospace and aviation?

Unfortunately, No.

As a pilot, she didn't have that role, but they offered to include her anyway. As noted in earlier posts, they offered her a position on a safety committee, to give her a voice. It was really not about her speaking up on safety, it was the insistence on her own views & positions.

[twoid][/twoid]

Avatar2go wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It would be interesting to know if any of her Captains and other co-workers had ever reported "issues" prior to this incident. Was this part of Delta's defense?

Yes, Delta offered testimony from her file. She had other conflicts with peers & superiors in the past. However nothing of this magnitude.

The trigger seems to have been her earning of the safety degree, which she believed gave her the authority to challenge Delta. When they disagreed, she saw that as discrimination, since she was credentialed and there was no reason to dispute her recommendations.

She had also raised the discrimination issue in earlier conflicts, but had not complained formally. When she raised it in the VP meeting, they considered it a formal complaint and sent her to HR. That combination is what ultimately touched off the Section 15 decision.

Which is a colossal red flag and is either a testament to to the incompetence or weakness of Delta’s HR function at the time. As soon as someone files a complaint, they are off limits under retaliation protection provisions unless they are a looney toons threat to safety. Someone having a recent relevant educational background who passionately disagrees with you doesn’t make them the next Andreas Lubitz. It’s obvious that Graham and Dickson did not like the way she challenged their responses in the meeting and directed a retaliatory action under the guise of safety that was later exhaustively discredited, resulted in a Doctor being forced into retirement to avoid losing his license, and resulted in a circuit court dismissing their challenge.