Pilots streamed airplane bathroom video to cockpit

Lindberg said:
Do you think it is likely that at some point between the joke and the lawsuit, someone explained to her that it was a joke?
Click to expand...

Well you seem to just miss the point so I’m not sure what can be gained by carrying on this debate. As a lawyer I find this type of lawsuit very puzzling and my guess is there are some missing facts. From where I sit in the cheap seats it seems like a pretty childish “prank” by grown men flying a commercial airliner. But that’s me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Forgetting the lawsuit aspect of this, I for one wouldn't want to be on a plane, that is being piloted by such immature people. If I was on the job and showed a video to a tech, nurse, other physician, or anyone else, and said "this is you in the washroom", fake or not, I would be lucky to keep my license to practice medicine. Guaranteed I would lose my hospital privileges and more.
It is an extremely horrible thing to do, and certainly not a funny prank in my opinion!
 
Tommar98 said:
Well you seem to just miss the point so I’m not sure what can be gained by carrying on this debate. As a lawyer I find this type of lawsuit very puzzling and my guess is there are some missing facts. From where I sit in the cheap seats it seems like a pretty childish “prank” by grown men flying a commercial airliner. But that’s me.
Click to expand...

No mystery. There is a buck to be made so someone is going to file suit. No difference from the ADA scam. Disabled folks who never had any need to do business with someone until they diiscover that the handles in the bathroom are too far apart or the ramp a degree too steep.
They banked on this being embarrassing enough for SWA to throw a couple of 100k their way to make it go away without bad press.
 
weilke said:
No mystery. There is a buck to be made so someone is going to file suit. No difference from the ADA scam. Disabled folks who never had any need to do business with someone until they diiscover that the handles in the bathroom are too far apart or the ramp a degree too steep.
They banked on this being embarrassing enough for SWA to throw a couple of 100k their way to make it go away without bad press.
Click to expand...

Wow - now people who benefit from ADA regulations are bad - but pilots who pull childish bathroom pranks on new flight attendants are cool. I’ll stick with my first assessment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Groundpounder said:
God I hate it when I'm right.
Click to expand...
But you had no evidence at the time that you were right. You claimed to heard something, but had nothing to back it up. You attacked the woman without knowing any of the facts.
 
Tommar98 said:
Yes. However attacking the woman who didn’t know it was a joke was the problem I had with your post. The knee jerk response to blame a woman for being a “whackdoo” was what I was bothered by. If you knew this was a failed attempt at a sophomore high school level prank then you should have said that. Instead you commented on the woman for complaining about it. That was my issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

She knew it was a joke before she filed the lawsuit....
 
Tommar98 said:
Wow - now people who benefit from ADA regulations are bad - but pilots who pull childish bathroom pranks on new flight attendants are cool. I’ll stick with my first assessment.
Click to expand...

Straw man argument. I certainly never opined that those two pilots are 'cool'. If two of my staffers pulled that on a third there would be consequences. It's a stupid immature prank, you know , at the level of 'rubber dog poo' and fart jokes level immature. Nothing you need in the workplace.

And no, people who benefit from ADA are not bad. People who exploit ADA to file frivolous suits based on it are bad.
 
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.
 
I fail to see how the husband is a victim. Can you have personal knowledge of the incident if you weren’t there?

I am damaged after reading 84 pages of drivel. If a buck is to be made, somebody will try and I bet contingency-fee attorneys will try.
 
Landing Fees said:
I fail to see how the husband is a victim. Can you have personal knowledge of the incident if you weren’t there?
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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).
 
Tommar98 said:
Well you seem to just miss the point so I’m not sure what can be gained by carrying on this debate. As a lawyer I find this type of lawsuit very puzzling and my guess is there are some missing facts. From where I sit in the cheap seats it seems like a pretty childish “prank” by grown men flying a commercial airliner. But that’s me.
Click to expand...
As a litigator, the only lawsuits I'm ever puzzled by are the ones where there's not a buck to be made. That some plaintiff's L&E lawyer might have smelled a potentially embarrassing (read, quick settlement) lawsuit against deep pockets and maybe left out some facts from the complaint or didn't do any more investigation than necessary to file the complaint? That wouldn't surprise me.
 
Last edited:
Landing Fees said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
PeterNSteinmetz said:
If she is suffering from psychological distress, he could likely argue that he suffers as well.
Click to expand...

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.


PeterNSteinmetz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Claim 3 is probably going to be the toughest one to defend against.

If the allegations regarding the display of images are true, it’s not hard to make the jump to the flight deck having created a hostile work environment. Unless SWA investigated that aspect and took appropriate action based on the findings, then they will probably share some of the responsibility for allowing that environment to be created.
 
TCABM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
IK04 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tommar98 said:
Yes. However attacking the woman who didn’t know it was a joke was the problem I had with your post. The knee jerk response to blame a woman for being a “whackdoo” was what I was bothered by. If you knew this was a failed attempt at a sophomore high school level prank then you should have said that. Instead you commented on the woman for complaining about it. That was my issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. He is obviously a serial misogynist.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
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.
Click to expand...


Once again...

Court filings by attorneys for Dallas-based Southwest and the two pilots denied the livestreaming allegations, and Southwest on Saturday issued statements saying it will vigorously contest the suit and denying it places cameras in aircraft lavatories.

"When the incident happened two years ago, we investigated the allegations and addressed the situation with the crew involved," the company's second statement said. "We can confirm from our investigation that there was never a camera in the lavatory; the incident was an inappropriate attempt at humor which the company did not condone."

The suit against Southwest, a company known for its joking and irreverent behavior by flight crews, and the two pilots was announced Saturday by attorneys for Steinaker and her husband, also a Southwest flight attendant.

https://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Lawsuit-Southwest-pilots-streamed-video-from-14564968.php
 
3393RP said:
Once again...

Court filings by attorneys for Dallas-based Southwest and the two pilots denied the livestreaming allegations, and Southwest on Saturday issued statements saying it will vigorously contest the suit and denying it places cameras in aircraft lavatories.

"When the incident happened two years ago, we investigated the allegations and addressed the situation with the crew involved," the company's second statement said. "We can confirm from our investigation that there was never a camera in the lavatory; the incident was an inappropriate attempt at humor which the company did not condone."

The suit against Southwest, a company known for its joking and irreverent behavior by flight crews, and the two pilots was announced Saturday by attorneys for Steinaker and her husband, also a Southwest flight attendant.

https://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Lawsuit-Southwest-pilots-streamed-video-from-14564968.php
Click to expand...

That statement doesn’t say the event did not occur.

What it says is that SWA did not put a camera in the lav and that two SWA employees demonstrated some sort of behavior or behaviors that resulted in an investigation that SWA, at a minimum, has had to publicly not condone.

I will guess that SWA investigation and it’s outcomes will be discoverable.
 
TCABM said:
That statement doesn’t say the event did not occur.

What it says is that SWA did not put a camera in the lav and that two SWA employees demonstrated some sort of behavior or behaviors that resulted in an investigation that SWA, at a minimum, has had to publicly not condone.

I will guess that SWA investigation and it’s outcomes will be discoverable.
Click to expand...

They say 'that there was never a camera in the lavatory'.

If there was never a camera there, the FAs privacy was never invaded.

Forensic investigation of the iPad and the pilots iCloud account should uncover the metadata to prove when that clip was shot and whether the internal camera on a iPhone or iPad was used. But that would be giving this BS lawsuit way more resources than it deserves.
 
weilke said:
They say 'that there was never a camera in the lavatory'.

If there was never a camera there, the FAs privacy was never invaded.

Forensic investigation of the iPad and the pilots iCloud account should uncover the metadata to prove when that clip was shot and whether the internal camera on a iPhone or iPad was used. But that would be giving this BS lawsuit way more resources than it deserves.
Click to expand...

I agree on the privacy part. It’s the alleged exposure to images what the person in the lav was doing that’s the problem.

One doesn’t need direct, explicit exposure of genitalia for sexual harassment to have occurred.
 
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.
 
I would be really surprised if Southwest as a company policy put cameras in the toilets. I would be a little less surprised if a couple of off base pilots got wacky and did something dumb like that. You'd think it beyond normal people but there is a lot of craziness in the world. You'd think cadets at the Air Force Academy would be pretty normal , but not so. A big scandal has been uncovered with the varsity swim team with way out of bounds sex assault and homosexual actions. And of course the coach claims he knew nothing about it but its been going on for years.
 
3393RP said:
You're absolutely correct. He is obviously a serial misogynist.
Click to expand...
No one said that. At the time the post you quoted was made, there was very little information. One couldn't say who was correct.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lindberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Shuswap BC said:
Forgetting the lawsuit aspect of this, I for one wouldn't want to be on a plane, that is being piloted by such immature people. If I was on the job and showed a video to a tech, nurse, other physician, or anyone else, and said "this is you in the washroom", fake or not, I would be lucky to keep my license to practice medicine. Guaranteed I would lose my hospital privileges and more.
It is an extremely horrible thing to do, and certainly not a funny prank in my opinion!
Click to expand...

Yeah, the medical field lost their sense of humor decades ago;):confused:

We had a lot of fun with the docs at our facility in the 80's ... PC crowd couldn't handle it now, so I won't recount any stories ...:cool::rolleyes:
 
Tommar98 said:
Well you seem to just miss the point so I’m not sure what can be gained by carrying on this debate. As a lawyer I find this type of lawsuit very puzzling and my guess is there are some missing facts. From where I sit in the cheap seats it seems like a pretty childish “prank” by grown men flying a commercial airliner. But that’s me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Shuswap BC said:
Forgetting the lawsuit aspect of this, I for one wouldn't want to be on a plane, that is being piloted by such immature people. If I was on the job and showed a video to a tech, nurse, other physician, or anyone else, and said "this is you in the washroom", fake or not, I would be lucky to keep my license to practice medicine. Guaranteed I would lose my hospital privileges and more.
It is an extremely horrible thing to do, and certainly not a funny prank in my opinion!
Click to expand...

you guys seem fun
 
I’m actually more concerned with the idea that a pilot thought the whole thing was a worthwhile joke.

I’ve heard plenty of humorous cockpit pranks like putting a 20 in the ACARS machine and convincing the brand new FA that there is an onboard ATM, but I fail to see the humor of pretending there is a camera in the lav....
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
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?
Click to expand...
I don't know enough of the facts. But generally, there has to be an obligation to preserve evidence, intentional or negligent destruction, and prejudice. And even then, there are potential sanctions less severe than an adverse inference.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
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?
Click to expand...
Unless something has changed, CVRs are not preserved unless there is an immediately known issue. From my understanding, the CVR only holds about 2 hours of recording and if nothing is immediately noted it will just keep overwriting. The relevant conversation was likely gone shortly after the aircraft departed on its next leg.

Maybe some of the airline guys can confirm, but I am not aware of any requirement to preserve all CVR recordings.
 
The CVR is not preserved, unless something occurs that prompts someone to preserve it. This wouldn’t be one of those things.
 
danhagan said:
Yeah, the medical field lost their sense of humor decades ago;):confused:

We had a lot of fun with the docs at our facility in the 80's ... PC crowd couldn't handle it now, so I won't recount any stories ...:cool::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Consider it handled.... and commence story-telling.. .please... I LOVE that stuff!
 
Fearless Tower said:
.....but I fail to see the humor of pretending there is a camera in the lav....
Click to expand...

And I fail to see how there NOT being a camera in the lav and the whole thing being a joke falls into any possible category of being sue-worthy. OK... the offended victim party didn't see the humor in it. I've seen plenty of comedic routines I thought were tasteless and unfunny. I have yet to sue one of those comedians... never even considered it. Being offended is not cause for compensation. If it was, I'd be rich several times over from several posters here on this forum, forget about actual REAL life. This is, without a doubt, a perfect example for application of the "suck it up, Buttercup" phrase. If the offended party was offended, he/she should tell the folks who perpetrated the life-threatening, psyche-damaging hoax upon him/her that he/she didn't appreciate it, and move on. Seriously. Mean people suck... all of them... both sides of the issue.
 
MuseChaser said:
Consider it handled.... and commence story-telling.. .please... I LOVE that stuff!
Click to expand...

Millions of them ... paging physicians, the operators always state last name, then first and last name on the intercom system hospital wide:

Operator: Paging Dr Butts, Dr Seymour Butts (too many to list)

If the doc was a surgical patient himself, we'd create a fake history of bilateral orchiectomy in the O.R. and send one of the newby nurses over to verify the case with him (it's done now, but not back then).

Everyone carried a 5cc syringe with water as a "squirt gun" ... attempt was to shoot someone in the privates on the elevator or just before lunch so it'd look like they had a bladder problem.

KY jelly on car door handles in the parking lot ... on the wipers if you didn't care for them much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top