Buck Rogers

Yea that is an entertaining tweet. Somebody on that tweet thinks she is entitled to be a medical doctor if Ben Carson can be called a medical doctor.....hmmm, let's see. Is Ben Carson a "real" doctor?

Carson became the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center in 1984 at age 33; he was the youngest chief of pediatric neurosurgery in the United States.[6] At retirement, he was professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.[7] Carson's achievements include participating in the first reported separation of conjoined twins joined at the back of the head. Although surgically a success, the twins continued to suffer neurologic/medical complications.[8] Additional accomplishments include performing the first successful neurosurgical procedure on a fetus inside the womb; performing the first completely successful separation of type-2 vertical craniopagus twins; developing new methods to treat brain-stem tumors; and revitalizing hemispherectomy techniques for controlling seizures.[9][10][6][11]He wrote over 100 neurosurgical publications. He retired from medicine in 2013.

Dr Biden a real doctor?

Dr Petite a real doctor?

This has nothing to do with gender....only titles.


And, are you telling me that there would be zero deaths if Republicans listened to the doctors? The same doctors that repeatedly changed their opinions? How did that work out for Cuomo? (Only a rhetorical question as are the following musings )

True irony can be found in the Trump impeachment with regards to Ukraine while there is "nothing to see" with influence pedaling and the Ukraine and the president elect.....all spearheaded by Swalwell. That is true irony.

FangsF15

Oh for heavens sakes, can we PLEASE not descend into another Internet political argument where zero minds are changed? FFS.

Keep the thread on point, it’s very, very worthy of being discussed.

m3113n1a1

Shining example of the great Delta culture!

Gspeed

It hurts so much doesn’t it sweetie? It’s gonna be ok.

Hank Kingsley

It's an experience to fly with the good doctor. I've had it more than once. That being said, Delta screwed the pooch.

Der Meister

two wrongs don't make a right.

JamesBond

Good grief


Oh and NY governor Cuomo says hi

Allegheny

The Act can only promote air safety by deterring discriminatory acts, if the air community is aware that AIR 21 whistleblower claims can provide effective relief. That desired outcome can be partially honored and effectuated by requiring Respondent to deliver a copy of this decision directly to its pilots and managers in its flight operations department. Respondent also must prominently post copies of the decision at every location where it posts other notices to employees related to employment law (e.g., wage and hour, civil rights in employment, age discrimination) for a period of 60 days. The Tribunal is aware of the Board’s guidance in Yates v. Superior Air Charter LLC d/b/a JetSuite Air, ARB No. 2017-0061, ALJ No. 2015-AIR-00028, slip op. at 10 (Sept. 26, 2019) cautioning that such measures may not be warranted. However, the Tribunal believes that publication is appropriate in this case. The applicable regulation provides: (b) If the administrative law judge concludes that the party charged has violated the law, the order shall direct the party charged to take appropriate affirmative action to abate the violation, including, where appropriate, reinstatement of the complainant to that person’s former position, together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions, and privileges of that employment, and compensatory damages. 29 C.F.R. § 1979.109(b)(emphasis added). The regulation does not limit what remedy achieves the Department’s stated goal of abating the violation, it only lists those items set forth in the statute. The purpose is to make the person whole, including the terms, conditions and privileges of their employment. In this case, Complainant remains in the employ of Respondent. Respondent has soiled—perhaps permanently—Complainant’s reputation within the aviation community by questioning her mental fitness. The statutory term “conditions . . . of that employment” includes restoration of one’s reputation within the aviation community, including Respondent’s employ. 257 The Tribunal’s compensatory damages calculation, nevertheless, still took into persuasive consideration the damages findings of other judges.
- 110 -
One way to mitigate the consequences of that action is to inform that community of the results of Respondent’s discriminatory actions towards one of its own. An underlying purpose of the statute is to deter those that commit discrimination, and to inform those that could be subject to such actions, that the Act does not tolerate such conduct. An informed public is a public armed with information necessary to prevent retaliation in the first place. And such publication has been ordered in other whistleblower cases. The Tribunal also notes that the Board has previously approved of such a remedy. In Mark Van v. Portneuf Medical Center, the ALJ required respondent to deliver a copy of the ALJ’s Decision directly to PMC’s pilots, medical flight staff, mechanics, and dispatchers and prominently post copies of his decision at every location where it posts other notices to employees that relate to employment law for no fewer than 60 days. ARB No. 11-028, 12-043, ALJ No. 2007-AIR-002. Respondent objected to this requirement and the Board found it proper, writing: Similar to other employee whistleblower protection statutes, the purpose of AIR 21 is to eliminate employer discrimination and retaliation against employees who report violations of air safety regulations. AIR 21 includes abatement as a remedy for a violation. It is a common remedy in discrimination cases to require a company liable for unlawful retaliation to notify employees of the liability.258 The ALJ was within his remedial discretion to order that [respondent] post the ALJ Decision finding the hospital liable for retaliating against [complainant] in violation of AIR 21. While we recognize the burden that might be imposed on [respondent] to deliver a copy of the ALJ’s 97-page Decision directly to its employees, the ALJ’s decision is available electronically on the DOL’s ALJ website at http://www.oalj.dol.gov and could be provided to its employees electronically via e-mail or other means. Id., slip op. at 20. Michaud v. BSP Transport, Inc., ARB No. 96-198 and 97-113, ALJ No. 1995-STA-29, slip op. at 10 (Oct. 9, 1997)(ARB approved an order requiring respondent to post a notice for 30 days). Finally, the Tribunal finds that publication of this decision would serve as a deterrent to not only those involved in the retaliatory acts concerning this case, but would also serve to deter others that might consider contemplating similar actions in the future. Deterrence of the wrongdoer and those that know of the conduct committed by the wrongdoer has long been deemed a proper factor when imposing a remedy for misconduct. 258 Here the Board cites to Pollack v. Continental Express, ARB Nos. 07-073, 08-051; ALJ No. 2006-STA-001, slip op. at 16 (ARB Apr. 7, 2010); Michaud v. BSP Transp., Inc., ARB No. 97-113, ALJ No. 1995-STA-029, slip op. at 10 (ARB Oct. 9, 1997), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., BSP Transp., Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 160 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1998). In Michaud, the Board approved an order requiring respondent to post a notice for 30 days and wrote “it is a standard remedy in discrimination cases to notify a respondent’s employees of the outcome of a case against their employer.”). See also Shields v. James E. Owen Trucking, Inc., Case No. 08-021, ALJ No. 2007-STA-022, slip op. at 14 (Nov. 30, 2009) (citing Michaud v. BSP Transp., Inc., ARB Case No. 97-113 (ARB Oct. 9, 1997); Griffith v. Atlantic Inland Carrier, ARB No. 04-010, ALJ No. 2002-STA-034, 2004 DOL Ad. Rev. Bd. LEXIS 6, 88 (Feb. 20, 2004).
- 111 -
To be clear, the intent of this portion of the order is not punitive, but remedial, and to inform the aviation community, especially those that work for Respondent. To not inform the aviation community about such actions defeats the very purpose of the Act which is to deter air carriers from retaliating against their employees. More important in deterring retaliatory conduct is the actor’s perception of a high probability of detection. If the prospective manager thinks he or she will not be caught, the existence of a rule against the act will not deter the wrongdoing. Therefore, the consequence of such discriminatory actions is not just to make the Complainant whole, but to arm Respondent’s leaders and employees with information about the resultant actions of violating actors. Publication as required is not onerous, possibly embarrassing, but not onerous. To the extent publication of Respondent’s actions brings it any discomfort, it is a natural consequence of its unlawful discriminatory actions. G. Attorney Fees and Costs259 Complainant may submit a Fee Petition within sixty (60) days of this decision detailing the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses that were reasonably incurred by Complainant in this case. Supportive documentation must be attached. Thereafter, Respondent has twenty-one (21) days within which to challenge the payment of costs and expenses sought by Complainant; and Complainant has fourteen (14) days within which to file any reply to Respondents’ response. H. Litigation Costs In addition to attorney fees and cost, Complainant seeks reimbursement for other litigation expenses to include travel to meeting with AIR 21 attorneys and transcription. She represents these costs are in excess of $14,000. Tr. at 539; Comp. Br. at 55. However, the Tribunal does not have sufficient information to award specific costs. The Tribunal will award reasonable litigation costs, but additional details are required. As Complainant requested that it be allowed a separate filing for attorney fees and cost if an award was granted, the Tribunal views these costs as being within her request. Therefore, the parties are given the same time to submit evidence on these expenses as set forth in the attorney fees and costs section above. VIII. ORDER Respondent must: a. from the date of this Order, henceforth compensate Complainant at a wage no lower than the highest salary provided for any other Respondent first officer. 259 Complainant’s counsel specifically requested that he not be required to submit attorney invoices until after the Tribunal issued a Decision and Order. The Tribunal granted that request in its Order Deny Respondent’s “Letter Motion” Opposing Complainant’s Request for Subpoena and Granting Complainant’s Unopposed Motion to Defer Submission of Attorney Invoices, dated March 8, 2019.
- 112 -
b. reinstate either the vacation days Complainant used to avoid being placed on disability, or pay her the $52,522.03 for the loss of her vacations; c. pay Complainant $500,000 in compensatory damages; d. reimburse Complainant her litigations costs and attorney fees and costs. Complainant’s counsel will separately file a detailed request for litigation costs and his attorney fees and costs within 60 days of the date of this Order. e. deliver an electronic copy of the decision directly to all of its pilots and managers in its flight operations department. Respondent also will prominently post copies of the decision at every location where it posts other notices to employees related to employment law (e.g., wage and hour, civil rights in employment, age discrimination) for a period of 60 days. SO ORDERED

buckleyboy

Combination of being dense & obtuse and TLDR in this question:
What should we expect to receive electronically from the company within the next 60 days? A mea culpa? Or something much more vague?

tennisguru

I'm going to go with the minimum legally required by the ruling...