Another TWA lawsuit filed?

[jersey777]

Rumor has it that a group of former TWA flight attendants have filed yet another lawsuit. Maybe some on here can substantiate that rumor. It has also been suggested by some that IF there is another lawsuit it is because there is backing from outside sources...maybe another union? The goal is to drain the APFA coffers while having no real expectations that they would win their case. Anyone else heard this?

 

[jimntx]

Ah, nothing like starting the New Year with another anti-TWA paranoid rumor. Galley gossip is so dependable. This should be good for several pages of online justification--my sister's hairdresser's dog groomer's next door neighbor's 2nd cousin who works next to the Wichita Falls airport (so he ought to know) told me...

 

[jersey777]

Paranoia? I'll say! I think the past has shown that we have much to be paranoid over. Lawsuit after lawsuit. Appeal after appeal. Picketing. Letters to congress. Jim, if you don't have factual information to add besides your typical nasty comments then leave this thread up to those that do.

 

[jimntx]

Facts? You are demanding facts? When your original post started with "Rumor has it.." That's rich.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

Paranoia? I'll say! I think the past has shown that we have much to be paranoid over. Lawsuit after lawsuit. Appeal after appeal. Picketing. Letters to congress. Jim, if you don't have factual information to add besides your typical nasty comments then leave this thread up to those that do.

Not since the days of Jimmy Hoffa have so many been so terrified of so few.

 

[nbmcg01]

Not since the days Jimmy Hoffa have so many been so terrified of so few.

Great minds..lol I posted the same on the resolution thread

 

[damajagua]

Rumor has it that a group of former TWA flight attendants have filed yet another lawsuit. Maybe some on here can substantiate that rumor. It has also been suggested by some that IF there is another lawsuit it is because there is backing from outside sources...maybe another union? The goal is to drain the APFA coffers while having no real expectations that they would win their case. Anyone else heard this?

I would not be the least surprise.

 

[Flyboy4u]

The more lawsuits the better! Whether factual based, or rumor based...I just hope whatever the case, this so called "union APFA" either files BK itself, or gets out of the way so those who really care can move on with what job is left in this profession.

 

[nbmcg01]

Paranoia? I'll say! I think the past has shown that we have much to be paranoid over. Lawsuit after lawsuit. Appeal after appeal. Picketing. Letters to congress. Jim, if you don't have factual information to add besides your typical nasty comments then leave this thread up to those that do.

Which one(s) are you referring to... there are more than one (union) on the property.

Relentless you bet...can you imagine the negotiating power of the APFA IF the average AA f/a was as tenacious. More to come...

 

[factsonly]

Rumor has it that a group of former TWA flight attendants have filed yet another lawsuit. Maybe some on here can substantiate that rumor. It has also been suggested by some that IF there is another lawsuit it is because there is backing from outside sources...maybe another union? The goal is to drain the APFA coffers while having no real expectations that they would win their case. Anyone else heard this?

Not a rumor. See the filing below. Throw in the TWA letter and you wonder why their getting their voting rights taken away. They are their own worst enemy.



Plaintiffs: Mary Pat Taylor and Karen Sue Marshall
Defendants: American Airlines, Inc., A.M.R. Corporation and Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA)

Case Number: 4:2009cv01991
Filed: December 4, 2009

Court: Missouri Eastern District Court
Office: St. Louis Office [ Court Info ]
County: St. Louis - County
Presiding Judge: Honorable Catherine D. Perry

Nature of Suit: Labor - Labor/Management Relations
Cause: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Amount Demanded: $75,000.00

 

[nbmcg01]

Not a rumor. See the filing below. Throw in the TWA letter and you wonder why their getting their voting rights taken away. They are their own worst enemy.



Plaintiffs: Mary Pat Taylor and Karen Sue Marshall
Defendants: American Airlines, Inc., A.M.R. Corporation and Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA)

Case Number: 4:2009cv01991
Filed: December 4, 2009

Court: Missouri Eastern District Court
Office: St. Louis Office [ Court Info ]
County: St. Louis - County
Presiding Judge: Honorable Catherine D. Perry

Nature of Suit: Labor - Labor/Management Relations
Cause: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Amount Demanded: $75,000.00

Oh this one.. I thought you were talking about another. $75,000? Interesting amount of damage sought. How many ways have the rights of the members in question been violated? I haven't seen the suit but there are enough STL issues alone to keep the courts busy for a while. Not to mention that the original SIA included JFK. Selective following. Fence jumping. Giving up ones AA certification to become TWA LLC f/as and on and on...

As for the dues issue..apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other. Punitive action for exercising ones right to be fairly represented... DFR?

 

[FWAAA]

Oh this one.. I thought you were talking about another. $75,000? Interesting amount of damage sought.

There's nothing "interesting" about a demand for $75,000 of damages; in order to establish diversity jurisdiction in federal court, one requirement is that the plaintiff allege at least $75k of damages. Nothing magical or telling about these plaintiffs alleging $75k - it's boilerplate in every lawyer's formbook of federal court complaints.

 

[MCI transplant]

There's nothing "interesting" about a demand for $75,000 of damages; in order to establish diversity jurisdiction in federal court, one requirement is that the plaintiff allege at least $75k of damages. Nothing magical or telling about these plaintiffs alleging $75k - it's boilerplate in every lawyer's formbook of federal court complaints.

<_< ------ What only $75,000!!!? Under the circumstances, that's a pittance!!!!

 

[nbmcg01]

There's nothing "interesting" about a demand for $75,000 of damages; in order to establish diversity jurisdiction in federal court, one requirement is that the plaintiff allege at least $75k of damages. Nothing magical or telling about these plaintiffs alleging $75k - it's boilerplate in every lawyer's formbook of federal court complaints.

Thank you for the explanation. I would imagine final damages sought will be much higher, ergo my initial surprise at the $75,000 figure..

 

[gasman]

$75,000 Plus loss of wages, medical, 401K, etc for every year that they have been harmed!