Originally Posted by
Excargodog
Perhaps DUE to her probationary status and the fact that her immediate supervisor was pouring the drinks for her.
Nobody wants to take a case to court for wrongful termination when the immediate supervisor was the one that provoked the situation that caused the termination. The supervisor getting canned and the subordinate getting counseled and her probation extended is about par for the course.
Combine that with the rape allegation and the woman's civil suit against Alaska and that would make the legal department even LESS likely to recommend canning the junior person, because it would reek of retribution for the lawsuit itself, a lawsuit that Alaska dearly wants to settle out of court to avoid going through discovery and even more desperately wants to avoid the adverse publicity a trial would cost them.
Basically, they need the goodwill of the young woman whereas the captain has made himself a liability and an embarrassment. This was predictable from day one.
Wasn't this case already investigated by the company and found there was insufficient evidence to pursue administrative action? Weren't both parties cleared to return to flying status pending currency training? So now, due to the FOs public outcry, the company elects to terminate the captain and retain the FO?
Given today's corporate culture and fear of further liability, lawsuits, and more bad press, would it be safe to guess that this captain was offered a settlement that involved a severance package and the ability to resign in lieu of termination? I can only imagine the number of attorneys who would otherwise be contacting this captain for a wrongful termination lawsuit. Alaska just wants this whole mess to quietly go away and, given the sizeable legal costs and PR disaster of another lawsuit dragging out indefinitely, likely cut their losses, made an offer big enough to entice him to 'retire'. She's satisfied by his dismissal and the media and lawyers go away. Problem solved.