Whistle blower Karlean Pettit
 

In a decision dated December 21, 2020, federal Administrative Law Judge Scott R. Morris found Delta Air Lines, Inc. guilty of having used a compulsory psychiatric examination as a “weapon” against Dr. Karlene Petitt after she raised safety issues related to the airline’s flight operations. [Decision – Attachment A].

Dr. Petitt has been a pilot for over forty years, has a doctorate in Aviation Safety from Embry-Riddle, and currently flies the Airbus A350. On January 28, 2016, she submitted a 43-page safety report Delta Senior Vice President of Flight Steven Dickson (currently serving as the Trump administration’s FAA Administrator) and Vice President of Flying Operations Jim Graham (currently serve as the CEO of Delta subsidiary Endeavor Air). The report raised issues concerning: pilot fatigue, pilot training, pilot training records, and Delta’s failure to properly maintain its FAA-mandated Safety Management Systems (SMS) program. While Judge Morris characterized Dr. Petitt’s stated safety concerns as “prudent and reasonable,” he found that Captain Graham viewed her “tenacity in seeking clarification about her stated safety concerns as somehow problematic.” [Decision at 86].

Graham subsequently ordered Dr. Petitt to submit to psychiatric examination, a decision approved by Stephen Dickson. Prompted by its legal counsel Chris Puckett, Delta selected Dr. David B. Altman as the examiner, whom the judge characterized as “merely a tool used by Captain Graham to effectuate a management objective.” [Decision at 97]. In a consent order dated August 24, 2020, Dr. Altman agreed to be placed on permanent inactive status as a part of a settlement of an action brought by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to revoke or suspend his license, or otherwise subject him to discipline. [Attachment B and C]. Altman received over $73,000 for his psychiatric report and relied on Dr. Petitt’s safety-related communications, provided to him by Delta, to diagnose her with “mania” and “grandiosity.” [Decision at 54-55, 57]. Altman testified that his adverse diagnosis was also driven in part by Dr. Petitt’s ability to raise children, assist her husband with his business, and attend night school, which he described as “well beyond what any woman I’ve ever met could do.” [Decision at 56].

Altman’s diagnosis was subsequently rejected by both the Mayo Clinic and a third “tie-breaker” psychiatrist; however, the process dragged out over 21 months during which “her very career hanged in balance.” [Decision at 80]. Judge Morris awarded Dr. Petitt compensatory damages of $500,000 – five times the highest previously recorded award under the whistleblower statute – in recognition of the “severe emotional toll this placed on [Dr. Petitt’s] wellbeing.” [Decision at 80].

As Judge Morris held: “it is improper for [Delta] to weaponize this process for the purposes of obtaining blind compliance by its pilots due to fear that [Delta] can ruin their career by such cavalier use of this tool of last resort.” [Decision at 98]. Judge Morris quoted findings of Dr. Steinkraus of the Mayo Clinic with respect to the diagnosis of Dr. Petitt:

“This has been a puzzle for our group – the evidence does not support presence of a psychiatric diagnosis but does support an organizational/corporate effort to remove this pilot from the rolls. … years ago in the military, it was not unusual for female pilots and air crew to be the target for such an effort.”

[Decision at 100]. The judge concluded: “The evidence of record substantiates Dr. Steinkraus’ take on the situation.” [Id.].

Delta’s treatment of Dr. Petitt became an issue in the context of FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson’s appointment process due to his failure to disclose to the Senate Commerce Committee his approval of Graham’s psychiatric directive or the fact that he had been subject to a deposition of several hours. The judge made the following observations concerning Captain Dickson’s conduct:

“The Tribunal finds less than credible Captain Dickson’s deposition testimony as it found many of his responses evasive … His testimony was of value in understanding the leadership culture at [Delta] and its understanding (or lack thereof) of [Delta’s] management’s role in its safety management program. His emails make it clear that Respondent’s much touted ‘open door policy’ was not as opened as portrayed.”

Asked to comment on the case, Dr. Petitt’s legal counsel, Lee Seham, stated:

“What I find both stupefying and worrisome is that, in all this time, Delta has never apologized to Dr. Petitt – even after Dr. Altman’s diagnosis was discredited. Worrisome because those responsible for this injustice remain in positions of authority. In my view, in the absence of some intense introspection and accountability, Delta’s flight operations will continue to be compromised. Safety reporting has to be cultivated, not suppressed


This happened to a number of us that once worked at Delta.

There is more nuance to this (available through public sources) story than what is posted here. I’d encourage those intrigued by the post topic to dig deeper. (Discovery transcripts generally available)

Nevertheless, it is an interesting follow up to a civil suit involving the company.

Thanks for the update.


(“doctorate in Aviation Safety from Embry-Riddle”....not all doctorates are equal, IMHO. )

"Dr" Pettit??!?! as in a PhD?? That is not a doctor. Furthermore, a "doctorate" from Humpty-Diddle?!!!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA<breathe>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How about just a "Delta Air Lines Pilot". That would be all that is required in this case.

boy that is so sexist and demeaning I don't know what to say. She has a PhD. If you had one I would give your opinion a little weight. So ****. If it was a male pilot would you be saying the same thing?

regardless, Delta's (management) conduct was vindictive and the judge made the right decision.

This PhD knew her audience (worshipers of the credential mills) and targeted her complaint precisely.

Not going to comment on the merits (don’t wanna get sooo-ed or axed); personal opinion is that the logical fallacy of “Appeal to Authority” has run amuck in the US. I’m far more impressed with a MIT BS engineering grad than I am of ANY non medical PHD, from ANY school.

The case overall is an interesting story of Delta management under oath with transcripts readily available, one of whom is now leading the FAA. Draw your own conclusions; “under oath “ is rather unusual.

(I lean MASSIVELY Big D, but I’m biased as heck)

You mean Dr Biden isnt a medical doctor? Dr Petiite isnt a medical doctor? Talk about misleading . A lie is not a lie if it only misleads?. I can forgive an outright lier quicker than I can a miss leader.

To each their own.

Never mind......

I’m guessing this went off the rails so fast as an attempt to distract from how Delta just got owned in court and caught in such disgusting behavior? It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s Delta managers on here trying to immediately turn the conversation into a juvenile political argument to prevent any real discussion.

The transcripts are available online. You should read them and then form a opinion.

https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/st...827921928?s=20

”The deepest irony of this whole “I’m a Republican so I only respect doctors who are medical doctors,” thing is that 300,000 Americans are dead because Republicans didn’t respect medical doctors.”

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.

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.

Shining example of the great Delta culture!

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

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

two wrongs don't make a right.

Good grief


Oh and NY governor Cuomo says hi

Partial -Judges Order -Karlene Petit
 

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

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?

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

Without commenting on the merits of the case, kudos to her legal team beating a fortune 500 (or whatever delta is) in court. You don't see that everyday. Now to years and years of appeals?

dejavu
 

Having been around for 34 years now, I can tell you that Delta has screwed the pooch on a number of occasions when it has come to HR. They used to have an AME on retainer in Houston who they sent problem pilots to see after they had returned to work with an up chit. The Dr. down there would find reasons to deny their medical and the pilots would end up in limbo before usually losing their jobs. Google Capt. WOW (Wayne O. Witter), an ATL based L1011 driver who went through that very process and ended up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Delta lost their case against him.


Or how about the Pan Am flight attendants who in their interviews to be hired into Delta during the merger with the part of Pan AM that was purchased were asked highly personal questions about their sex lives. As in: have you ever had an abortion? Delta was promptly sued in a NY state court and if I remember correctly paid out over 6 million in damages. At the time our CEO was one Ron Allen, as far as I know, the only airline CEO ever to come out of the Personnel ranks.


I would guess the departure of Dickson and Grahm from senior pilot leadership positions has something to do with this lawsuit.


Don't forget that ALPA labored for over a decade to get an ASAP program on the property. It came crashing down after several years when a 4th floor denizen decided to use restricted ASAP data to go after a former LEC Capt. rep. The MEC chair informed the SVP Flight Ops that ASAP was done. It only came back years later to help expedite the merger between Delta nd Northwest.


Our safety culture is not as deep as many would suspect and our HR processes obviously need some work.


Fly Safe.

So rather than discuss the actual issue (how a pilot was retaliated against and sent to a psychiatrist for reporting safety concerns) you want to discuss how she's undeserving of the title "doctor".... How many PhDs do you have? This poor woman lost 2 years of her career and you want to make fun of her?! This is gross. And I would argue sexist.

Keep in mind Phins is a total whack job. He claims to be married to a “doctor”, and him and his doctor spouse are followers of the crazy demon spawn doctor:

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/rep...in-demon-sperm

now there's someone worthy of the title 😂

Discussion about the legal merits of this case on a public forum when all parties involved have demonstrated themselves to be quite litigious is perilous, to say the least. Not advised, obviously. This whole thread is begging for libel action.

Phins point sidesteps this (wise, IMHO), sidesteps it entirely and thread-drifts it into a discussion about “are all PhDs equal”? (Obviously not, in my opinion, because I’ve several “Dr.s”in the family and they are NOT all equal by a long shot. The NASA guy is brilliant, the Ehd gal who got it for for a public school pay bump is a moron...that’s just my roots though)

My .02...it’s worth reading the court transcripts and discovery interviews for a deeper understanding of some of the pilots you work with, and the company you work for, and insights into some senior management types at the FAA. Then yak about it in the cockpit if you dare, but not in a public forum.

Yeah, because If we had Democrats, Conservative and Unionist, or Klingons in it would have been negative 20 deaths!

Just to be clear, Phins to the Right is not ~~~/\~~~

So what are the important safety issues that were highlighted? What got fixed? ....

I think not eating at the Metzican joint before sim was one .

Shhh DeltaboundRedux says it's better to make fun of her.

How Typical
 

What a surprise to find individuals here demeaning Karlene. Might I suggest those that have already taken the corporate 'Blue Pill' are way to far gone and should find a natural home at the FAA.

You see, I was contacted by Karlene many years ago after I successfully also brought to heel a major UK airline in very similar circumstances. As in Karlene's case the union turned its back. I won my case despite having to represent myself. I therefore know Karlene's case intimately.

I would lay a rather large bet that those decrying Karlene have not read the judgement, the depositions or the transcript of the trial. Might I make a friendly suggestion that they do, then remove the comments before their comments are made to look foolish or...dare I say it... Managerial.

I will say one word....'Altman' ...do your research.

Due to 'regulatory capture' the FAA, unions and airlines are all in one nice cosy bed. It's the same in the UK. I wrote a book about my case, named names, highlights internal documents, and according to one review 'publically shamed individuals'. Karlene's case is featured in the second in the series. Don't worry...the books are all legally checked before publication. The same is planned. The choice is yours Blue pill and swallow the corporate BS 'safety is our blah blah blah' or take the red pill, read it and not only see whats going on but start to push back www.pullingwingsfrombutterflies.com

Not at all. A general mocking of credentialism is not a specific mocking of an individual.

The dueling mandated psychological exams discussed in the transcripts are territory that I don’t think most pilots think about ever being subjected to. At the very least, I think it’s fair to say that if you decide to go down the “whistleblower” route, getting a company mandated eval by a company chosen physician is apparently fair game.

That was news to me. For the would be whistleblower “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead.” When considering your possible resultant psyche eval, the old saw about “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Lots of expensive uncertainty, and while KP “won”, it was a pretty tough road to get there.

I haven't read the tiny details but it sounds like they were incorrectly representing dead head time. And possibly causing too long of duty times. Or something like that. And even if she had been incorrect about her findings, its not crazy to have a safety concern and to voice it to management. It does not make a good "safety culture" if bringing potential issues to light gets you shipped off to a psychiatrist who labels you as crazy. This seems like a huge issue to me. And now this man is nominated to run the FAA? No thank you.

Know absolutely NOTHING about this particular case. I have worked with numerous HR departments though, and just like airline pilots have their “pilot friendly” AMEs to go to, HR departments also have their lists of “company friendly” fitness for duty docs to send their employees to. You would be a fool to think otherwise. Contracts should always require a second opinion and - if necessary - a DISINTERESTED tie breaker.

Attachment 5984
Sorry Mike, unable.

Regarding Dr. Altman and his history, can you please provide
some references?

He has been very influential in professional aviation medicine.

One of the safety issues she had was positive space to work not being considered DH and appropriate FAR’s applied.

Thats just crazy talk. :D

Are you referring to the same captain Graham that's the Endeavor new CEO?

I'm not sure what a can of worms actually looks like...but it could be something like that.