Well, I did a Google search myself and had no problem finding multiple articles on this tradgedy.
I have no problem representing a class of pilots who were employed prior to the acquisition only to be replaced by pilots who were furloughed. No need to lecture me about character, St. Nic.
I'll give you a review of the scheme you seem so proud to promote:
After shopping several law firms, a group of East Pilots found a law firm willing to guide, indeed promote, a scheme of advancing East Pilot seniority rights to the detriment of West Pilot seniority rights. This law firm, Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP, advised the East Pilots that, with majority status, they could create USAPA and use it to promote their seniority interests in disregard of the Nicolau Award. Mr. Seham told them, relying on his tortured reading of Rakestraw, that USAPA could advance East Pilot interests to the detriment of West Pilot interests so long as there was any rational relation to a legitimate union objective, regardless of USAPA's actual motives.
USAPA, while guided by its legal advisor, left quite an evidentiary trail of bad faith. Much of that trail was apparently created to garner political support among East Pilots who wanted a union that would advance their majority interests over those of the West Pilot minority. USAPA, with legal guidance, acted while motivated by that bad faith. It drafted a constitution intended to create a pretext defining a duty to disregard the Nicolau Award. It made campaign promises to disregard the Nicolau Award. Once elected, it embarked on a preordained course to disregard the Nicolau Award. It did all these things solely for illegitimate motives.
USAPA left the West Pilots no option but to institute this litigation. Plaintiffs filed this action after the Airline announced plans to reduce service in a manner that would burden West Pilots far more than they would have been burdened if the transition to Operational Pilot Integration had occurred as intended. USAPA selected the Seham law firm to handle its defense. In essence, therefore, the Seham law firm was put in a position of defending both itself for advising USAPA to take the actions that led to this lawsuit and USAPA for following that advice.
