ALPA/TWA Duty of Fair Representation Award

[ultrarunner]

I guess ALPA was banking on sympathy in-as-much as they chose a jury-trial...ALPA likely conceded they would have lost a bench-trial...

 

[redflyer65]

Verdicts like this get overturned all the time. A DFR case is incredibly technical, and an appeals panel is likely to see things quite differently than a jury of 12 laymen was. And that's assuming that the second jury even awards them any money in the first place.

And why didn't the bench judge overturn it already? He saw all the same evidence.

 

[Turtle21]

Verdicts like this get overturned all the time. A DFR case is incredibly technical, and an appeals panel is likely to see things quite differently than a jury of 12 laymen was. And that's assuming that the second jury even awards them any money in the first place.

I agree. Litigation that hopes to win 100s of millions of dollars is always a tedious, incredibly technical, and risky venture... especially DFR. The chances of ever getting better than 5 cents of the dollar, in any DFR, is remote. Its just the way it is. Courts have an extraordinary reluctance to interfere with union operations and afford them a wide range of reasonableness in their activities.

Not that folks shouldn't sue, as long as they understand the risks, and as long as they realize that time will surely and steadily erode the resolve of many within their class. Each person has to weigh for themselves the risk involved in each new opportunity to fund the lawyers.

 

[igneousy2]

Lee Moak says no members are going to be assessed...so it must be true!

What do you expect him to say? If he said, "hey, this might bankrupt ALPA" it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as every major pilot group runs for the doors.

As far as the comment that APA is who screwed the TWA pilots, that may be true in a philosophical sense but absolutely not in a legal sense. APA had no legal duty to the TWA pilots.

When you belong to a union, you are together for better or worse. You reap the benefits together (gotta love those insurance discounts!) and you pay together.

 

[Turtle21]

Lee Moak says no members are going to be assessed...so it must be true!

What do you expect him to say? If he said, "hey, this might bankrupt ALPA" it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as every major pilot group runs for the doors.

As far as the comment that APA is who screwed the TWA pilots, that may be true in a philosophical sense but absolutely not in a legal sense. APA had no legal duty to the TWA pilots.

When you belong to a union, you are together for better or worse. You reap the benefits together (gotta love those insurance discounts!) and you pay together.

Reminds me of Baghdad Bob!

 

[FDJ2]

The judge could have overturned it already. He hasn't. He's letting it go forward. There is a TON of weight when a jury convicts. Especially 12-0. They've heard all the evidence and ruled. Very, very rarely will any verdict of this magnatude get completely overturned.

Spellacy v. ALPA, overturned as a matter of law.

 

[SWA Bubba]

When you sue your insurance company, you aren't suing your union brothers and sisters. That should mean something. Sorry, but I don't feel it's right to take money out of your fellow union members' pockets.

Ahhh... here's the crux of the matter. If an entity screws you financially, you can have that addressed. ..... unless, of course, it's an entity composed of pilots--then, if you have been screwed, you should just stay screwed. Because asking them to repay their theft just isn't right. I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up, PCL.


By the way, if it isn't right to "take money out of your fellow union members' pockets," how do you feel about those "fellow union members" who took money out of THEIR pockets in the first place (at least according to the jury)?


And besides, those guys are part of APA now, not ALPA. So while it may be damages from a pilot union that their seeking, it's not from their "fellow union members." Or did you just mean from YOUR union? You know, whether people agree with you or not on your union positions, you're ususally pretty consistent with your principles. However, here your hypocracy is astounding.


Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Spellacy v. ALPA, overturned as a matter of law.

While certainly true in this particular case, this almost never happens (and in Spellacy, as in most of these cases, it was the trial judge who set aside the verdict, something this particular trial judge neglected to do). Damages get changed all the time--for lots of reasons--but when a jury says you're guilty, 99% of the time, you stay guilty.

Bubba

 

[FDJ2]

While certainly true in this particular case, this almost never happens (and in Spellacy, as in most of these cases, it was the trial judge who set aside the verdict, something this particular trial judge neglected to do).

The US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the judgment of the district court. As you know, under the de novo review the case is effectively retried. In Spellacy's case by the Second Circuit.

The standards for dismissal as a matter of law are difficult, but exist because juries can get it wrong, particularly with complex legal questions.

A grant of judgment as a matter of law when “(1) there is such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise or conjecture, or (2) there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the movant that reasonable and fair minded [jurors] could not arrive at a verdict against [it].”

Courts as you know give a wide degree of latitude to unions with regards to their duty of fair representation. DFR cases rarely succeed, about 5%.

 

[SWA Bubba]

The US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the judgment of the district court. As you know, under the de novo review the case is effectively retried. In Spellacy's case by the Second Circuit.

Here you're making it seem like someone else overturned the verdict. As I said, the trial judge himself (Weinstein, I believe) set aside the verdict on a matter of law. The Court of Appeals only affirmed his actions after the plaintiffs appealed that decision. As I said, this is how it usually goes, and it didn't happen in the ALPA/TWA verdict.

Courts as you know give a wide degree of latitude to unions with regards to their duty of fair representation. DFR cases rarely succeed, about 5%.

Here you're mixing apples with oranges to further muddle the argument. "DFR cases rarely succeed, about 5%," is what you said, implying that ALPA has a 95% chance of overturning this verdict. Baloney. Even if your 5% number is true (personally, I've never seen such a statistic), that would refer to the total cases initiated, NOT cases already won at a jury trial and then later overturned.

Is it still possible that ALPA will prevail and get the verdict set aside? I suppose it's possible. However, it's not anywhere near as likely as you and PCL seem to think.

Bubba