US AIRWAYS, INC. v. McCUTCHEN

[john john]

McCutchen suffered a serious automobile accident,
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020111116092.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
Argued July 11, 2011.

Opinion Filed November 16, 2011.

After Appellant James McCutchen suffered a serious automobile accident, a benefit plan administered by US Airways paid $66,866 for his medical expenses. McCutchen then recovered $110,000 from third parties, with the assistance of counsel. Then US Airways, which had not sought to enforce its subrogation rights, demanded reimbursement of the entire $66,866 it had paid without allowance for McCutchen's legal costs, which had reduced his net recovery to less than the amount it demanded. US Airways filed this suit against McCutchen for "appropriate equitable relief" pursuant to § 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). The issue before us is whether McCutchen may assert certain equitable limitations, such as unjust enrichment, on US Airways' equitable claim. We conclude that he may. We therefore vacate the District Court's order requiring McCutchen to pay US Airways the entire $66,866 and remand the case for that Court to fashion "appropriate equitable relief."

Applying the traditional equitable principle of unjust enrichment, we conclude that the judgment requiring McCutchen to provide full reimbursement to US Airways constitutes inappropriate and inequitable relief. Because the amount of the judgment exceeds the net amount of McCutchen's third-party recovery, it leaves him with less than full payment for his emergency medical bills, thus undermining the entire purpose of the Plan. At the same time, it amounts to a windfall for US Airways, which did not exercise its subrogation rights or contribute to the cost of obtaining the third-party recovery. Equity abhors a windfall. See Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. S.S. American Lancer, 870 F.2d 867, 871 (2d Cir. 1989).
Finally, US Airways raises a practical concern that the application of equitable principles will increase plan costs and premiums. This concern does not address the statutory language and is, in any event, unsubstantiated by the circumstances of this case. US Airways cannot plausibly claim it charged lower premiums because it anticipated a windfall.

 

[john john]

Ryan Price – Vice President, Human Resources
Ryan Price assumes the role of vice president, human resources. Price succeeds Dan Pon, who will be leaving US Airways at the end of the year. In this role, Price will oversee the airline’s Human Resources division including the health and retirement benefits, compensation, travel/relocation, employee relations, HR systems, and recruitment and staffing. He will report directly to Executive Vice President, People, Communications and Public Affairs Elise Eberwein.
“Ryan possesses the right combination of skills to lead our people services division during these economically challenging times and serve as a champion for our 32,000 co-workers,” said Eberwein. “Under Ryan’s leadership, we look forward to continuing to build upon the solid foundation put into place by Dan over the past four years.”

 

[SparrowHawk]

McCutchen suffered a serious automobile accident,
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020111116092.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
Argued July 11, 2011.

Opinion Filed November 16, 2011.

After Appellant James McCutchen suffered a serious automobile accident, a benefit plan administered by US Airways paid $66,866 for his medical expenses. McCutchen then recovered $110,000 from third parties, with the assistance of counsel. Then US Airways, which had not sought to enforce its subrogation rights, demanded reimbursement of the entire $66,866 it had paid without allowance for McCutchen's legal costs, which had reduced his net recovery to less than the amount it demanded. US Airways filed this suit against McCutchen for "appropriate equitable relief" pursuant to § 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). The issue before us is whether McCutchen may assert certain equitable limitations, such as unjust enrichment, on US Airways' equitable claim. We conclude that he may. We therefore vacate the District Court's order requiring McCutchen to pay US Airways the entire $66,866 and remand the case for that Court to fashion "appropriate equitable relief."

Applying the traditional equitable principle of unjust enrichment, we conclude that the judgment requiring McCutchen to provide full reimbursement to US Airways constitutes inappropriate and inequitable relief. Because the amount of the judgment exceeds the net amount of McCutchen's third-party recovery, it leaves him with less than full payment for his emergency medical bills, thus undermining the entire purpose of the Plan. At the same time, it amounts to a windfall for US Airways, which did not exercise its subrogation rights or contribute to the cost of obtaining the third-party recovery. Equity abhors a windfall. See Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. S.S. American Lancer, 870 F.2d 867, 871 (2d Cir. 1989).
Finally, US Airways raises a practical concern that the application of equitable principles will increase plan costs and premiums. This concern does not address the statutory language and is, in any event, unsubstantiated by the circumstances of this case. US Airways cannot plausibly claim it charged lower premiums because it anticipated a windfall.

Thanks John-John for providing an example to the readers of what I've been banging and harping on for 10 year regarding US Airways and the way they treat employees and then wring their hands in collective disbelief that they rank dead last or very close to it in Customer Satisfaction.

I wish I could say I'm surprised by this, bit sadly I'm not. If they can't treat employees right how then do they expect the employees to treat customers right? After I read this I now know why there are some out there with the "Full Pay To The Last Day" attitude. Frankly as I get older and see this crap I'd be one of those Full pay to the last day types myself.

I'm disgusted :angry: Actually what comes after disgusted? Because upon further review that's where I am

 

[CLTUSCaptive]

I am not a USAirways employee but I can tell you that this kind of thing is not unusual at all in dealing with insurance companies. They will do almost anything to delay or deny payment, or collect money from anyone they can. My father was once sued by the brother of a man renting his beach house who fell through the porch railing and got "soft tissue injuries" that couldn't be seen on an X-ray 🙄 . The first thing my dad's homeowners insurance company did was to say they wouldn't defend him, and he had to sue the insurance company to get them to pay the eventual settlement. During the discovery period of the suit, we found out the man suing had no job in the previous 3 years, and had filed multiple lawsuits over the same time period (he was basically a professional litigant). On topic, one of my wife's co-workers had a similar thing happen to him as in the OP's story. He was hit head-on by a 20 year old kid in a pick-up truck passing in a no-passing lane, and was in a hospital and rehab for 5 months. The kid was covered under his parents insurance and he sued them successfully for medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. The injured man's health insurance company (provided by his employer) took every penny from his share of the settlement.

 

[CallawayGolf]

I am not a USAirways employee but I can tell you that this kind of thing is not unusual at all in dealing with insurance companies. They will do almost anything to delay or deny payment, or collect money from anyone they can. My father was once sued by the brother of a man renting his beach house who fell through the porch railing and got "soft tissue injuries" that couldn't be seen on an X-ray 🙄 . The first thing my dad's homeowners insurance company did was to say they wouldn't defend him, and he had to sue the insurance company to get them to pay the eventual settlement. During the discovery period of the suit, we found out the man suing had no job in the previous 3 years, and had filed multiple lawsuits over the same time period (he was basically a professional litigant). On topic, one of my wife's co-workers had a similar thing happen to him as in the OP's story. He was hit head-on by a 20 year old kid in a pick-up truck passing in a no-passing lane, and was in a hospital and rehab for 5 months. The kid was covered under his parents insurance and he sued them successfully for medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. The injured man's health insurance company (provided by his employer) took every penny from his share of the settlement.

That's because insurance companies and self-insured companies like US have a fiduciary responsibility to keep costs under control for the benefit of everyone in the program. Fraud, waste, abuse and inadvertent double-payments are the first and most logical costs to eliminate. If premiums and deductibles don't cover the costs of providing services, then premiums will go up. Insurance companies are not evil for denying claims and ensuring that members of the group only receive qualified services and reimbursements, they are doing so so that rates can be a low as possible with an out-of-control medical care costs in this country. That's what we all sign up for when we enroll in a group plan. We know that certain limitations and service denials are a part of the plan and we take the coverage anyway. Just think how people would squeal about high premiums if insurance companies just paid every bill submitted and ignored all wasteful abuses of that will result in higher rates for all. Don't like it? Then fund your own medical care and opt out of group insurance.

 

[john john]

McCutchen suffered a serious automobile accident,
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020111116092.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
Argued July 11, 2011.

Opinion Filed November 16, 2011.


Finally, US Airways raises a practical concern that the application of equitable principles will increase plan costs and premiums. This concern does not address the statutory language and is, in any event, unsubstantiated by the circumstances of this case. US Airways cannot plausibly claim it charged lower premiums because it anticipated a windfall.

 

[ALPO NO MO]

That's because insurance companies and self-insured companies like US have a fiduciary responsibility to keep costs under control for the benefit of everyone in the program. Fraud, waste, abuse and inadvertent double-payments are the first and most logical costs to eliminate. If premiums and deductibles don't cover the costs of providing services, then premiums will go up. Insurance companies are not evil for denying claims and ensuring that members of the group only receive qualified services and reimbursements, they are doing so so that rates can be a low as possible with an out-of-control medical care costs in this country. That's what we all sign up for when we enroll in a group plan. We know that certain limitations and service denials are a part of the plan and we take the coverage anyway. Just think how people would squeal about high premiums if insurance companies just paid every bill submitted and ignored all wasteful abuses of that will result in higher rates for all. Don't like it? Then fund your own medical care and opt out of group insurance.

True. Whaterver any feelings people have about US, this is why stuff like this works this way. The company isn't being mean or hard hearted.

If you get a settlement to pay your medical bills, that is what it's for and you can't get $$$ twice. If you want to sue for pain and suffering, do it. Seems odd that such a serious accident was settled for only 100 grand, I'd like to know how big a chunk the lawyer got.

 

[SparrowHawk]

That's because insurance companies and self-insured companies like US have a fiduciary responsibility to keep costs under control for the benefit of everyone in the program. Fraud, waste, abuse and inadvertent double-payments are the first and most logical costs to eliminate. If premiums and deductibles don't cover the costs of providing services, then premiums will go up. Insurance companies are not evil for denying claims and ensuring that members of the group only receive qualified services and reimbursements, they are doing so so that rates can be a low as possible with an out-of-control medical care costs in this country. That's what we all sign up for when we enroll in a group plan. We know that certain limitations and service denials are a part of the plan and we take the coverage anyway. Just think how people would squeal about high premiums if insurance companies just paid every bill submitted and ignored all wasteful abuses of that will result in higher rates for all. Don't like it? Then fund your own medical care and opt out of group insurance.

Oh here we go with the tired old waste, fraud and abuse smokescreen. US Airways tried to bludgeon Mr/Ms McCutchen for having the audacity of actually having a legitimate claim. Then as the court decision rightly pointed out it wasn't enough for US to be made whole. NO the rat b*stards you work for had to seek a windfall. I wouldn't be surprised if they now try to discipline this person for excessive absence.

What a lying pack of drunken skunks. I always knew on some level this crap was going on, I just had no proof. Now I do in the form of a court decision that supports my contention. You wonder why some employees and customer hold Parker/Kirby in open contempt? Read the Court Ruling as it provides an excellent illustration of why things are as they are. You wonder why I believed that Kirby was drunk and behaved inappropriately without evidence? Read the Court Ruling.

It's like Oprah said, "When People Show You Who They Are, BELIEVE THEM"

 

[john john]

That's because insurance companies and self-insured companies like US have a fiduciary responsibility to keep costs under control for the benefit of everyone in the program. Fraud, waste, abuse and inadvertent double-payments are the first and most logical costs to eliminate. If premiums and deductibles don't cover the costs of providing services, then premiums will go up. Insurance companies are not evil for denying claims and ensuring that members of the group only receive qualified services and reimbursements, they are doing so so that rates can be a low as possible with an out-of-control medical care costs in this country. That's what we all sign up for when we enroll in a group plan. We know that certain limitations and service denials are a part of the plan and we take the coverage anyway. Just think how people would squeal about high premiums if insurance companies just paid every bill submitted and ignored all wasteful abuses of that will result in higher rates for all. Don't like it? Then fund your own medical care and opt out of group insurance.

So the courts got this one wrong

 

[CallawayGolf]

So the courts got this one wrong

I didn't mention this case specifically because I haven't read through all of the filings and rulings. I was simply stating the fact that insurance providers who fail to control costs and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse will either collapse under the financial burden (mismanagement) or they will have to raise premiums and/or exclude previously covered procedures/services in order to survive. It's just the mathematical/financial reality of a world where goods and services are not free.

Courts make poor/wrong rulings all the time. Legally they have the authority to enforce their decision on the effected parties, but that certainly doesn't make their rulings right, especially if my opinion is the one that counts for the final evaluation (and you did ask me for mine). The federal government, which includes the courts, inserts itself into the private sector well-beyond what the Constitution allows for. In this case the Company believed it was owed money from an employee and it should have every right to seek to get it back. Instead of going to court, they should have just docket the employee's pay. If the employee didn't agree and could not come to an agreement with the company, he/she could simply quit and go somewhere else leaving the company holding the bag for the unpaid balance. No court or federal involvement needed between an employee and employer relationship. Simple, easy and completely effective.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I didn't mention this case specifically because I haven't read through all of the filings and rulings. I was simply stating the fact that insurance providers who fail to control costs and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse will either collapse under the financial burden (mismanagement) or they will have to raise premiums and/or exclude previously covered procedures/services in order to survive. It's just the mathematical/financial reality of a world where goods and services are not free.

Courts make poor/wrong rulings all the time. Legally they have the authority to enforce their decision on the effected parties, but that certainly doesn't make their rulings right, especially if my opinion is the one that counts for the final evaluation (and you did ask me for mine). The federal government, which includes the courts, inserts itself into the private sector well-beyond what the Constitution allows for. In this case the Company believed it was owed money from an employee and it should have every right to seek to get it back. Instead of going to court, they should have just docket the employee's pay. If the employee didn't agree and could not come to an agreement with the company, he/she could simply quit and go somewhere else leaving the company holding the bag for the unpaid balance. No court or federal involvement needed between an employee and employer relationship. Simple, easy and completely effective.

BULLFEATHERS!

This is basic tort law and has little if anything to do with the federal government overstepping its boundaries as defined in the COTUS.

McCutchen argues that the phrase "appropriate equitable relief" means more than just that the relief US Airways seeks must be of an equitable type; courts must also exercise their discretion to limit that relief to what is "appropriate" under traditional equitable principles. In particular, he argues that the principle of unjust enrichment frames US Airways' claim. We agree.

This is a fundamental and appropriate ruling that is supported by substantial precedent and further proves that the naked greed of US Airways in seeking to recover a windfall from a guy who is lucky to even be alive, neverminding his quality of life post accident. Wonder what the Tempe Clown Posse would have done had he up and died? Sue his estate?

You can continue to Duck, Dodge & Deflect with Bull Crap arguments but the fact is that US Airways has now formally been exposed as the Liars, Cheats and Thieves many know them to be.

I fart in their general direction, Silly persons 😀 😀

 

[CallawayGolf]

BULLFEATHERS!

This is basic tort law and has little if anything to do with the federal government overstepping its boundaries as defined in the COTUS.



This is a fundamental and appropriate ruling that is supported by substantial precedent and further proves that the naked greed of US Airways in seeking to recover a windfall from a guy who is lucky to even be alive, neverminding his quality of life post accident. Wonder what the Tempe Clown Posse would have done had he up and died? Sue his estate?

You can continue to Duck, Dodge & Deflect with Bull Crap arguments but the fact is that US Airways has now formally been exposed as the Liars, Cheats and Thieves many know them to be.

I fart in their general direction, Silly persons 😀 😀

I gave you a solution where the employee got to walk away with the illegally-gained cash of his fellow co-workers and you call bullfeathers? The feds have no mandate or jurisdiction in this or hundreds of thousands of matters they insert themselves into on a regular basis. Caveat emptor my friend. If a person or a company lets someone else get the better of them then that's on them. As soon as the money left the coffers it would have been considered gone if the feds didn't allow people to sue over being too stupid to maintain control of their own expenditure decisions. You think tort law is functioning well in this country, seriously? Tort law is a drain on all of us even if we never see the inside of a court room. The costs of goods and services, especially in the medical market, are way higher than they need to be to cover tort law suits. Furthermore, we have a strained-to-the-limit court system because everyone wants to go to court to fix issues that are best left up to the individuals to resolve (or walk away from, caveat emptor you know).

You really think the money in question in this specific case comes out of US operating revenues and expenses? Not a chance; that money is collected from employees by way of premiums and would never be used to generate a profit or bonus for the company executives. The overpaid money will go into the total insurance costs of the self-funded medical benefits program and cumulatively will raise premiums on every employee in order for this one person to get away with sticking it to the company through some loophole. I'm sure every employee is thrilled to know that they just contributed a little extra benefit to one person by way of higher premiums. This in no way effects Doug's income or the financial condition of the airline. One employee ripping off all other employees is all that happened here. Nice job; that's why we pay judges the big bucks.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I gave you a solution where the employee got to walk away with the illegally-gained cash of his fellow co-workers and you call bullfeathers? The feds have no mandate or jurisdiction in this or hundreds of thousands of matters they insert themselves into on a regular basis. Caveat emptor my friend. If a person or a company lets someone else get the better of them then that's on them. As soon as the money left the coffers it would have been considered gone if the feds didn't allow people to sue over being too stupid to maintain control of their own expenditure decisions. You think tort law is functioning well in this country, seriously? Tort law is a drain on all of us even if we never see the inside of a court room. The costs of goods and services, especially in the medical market, are way higher than they need to be to cover tort law suits. Furthermore, we have a strained-to-the-limit court system because everyone wants to go to court to fix issues that are best left up to the individuals to resolve (or walk away from, caveat emptor you know).

You really think the money in question in this specific case comes out of US operating revenues and expenses? Not a chance; that money is collected from employees by way of premiums and would never be used to generate a profit or bonus for the company executives. The overpaid money will go into the total insurance costs of the self-funded medical benefits program and cumulatively will raise premiums on every employee in order for this one person to get away with sticking it to the company through some loophole. I'm sure every employee is thrilled to know that they just contributed a little extra benefit to one person by way of higher premiums. This in no way effects Doug's income or the financial condition of the airline. One employee ripping off all other employees is all that happened here. Nice job; that's why we pay judges the big bucks.

Upon reading most of the ruling I came away convinced that US Airways is NOT immoral rather amoral instead. NO CASH WAS Illegally gained by Mr MxCuthen, the court said so. The Court ruled that US Airways were greedy little piggies who got caught because Mr McCutcheon wouldn't role bend over and take it up the poop chute. May God bless him and help him recover his health.

Tort law is just fine in this country. It's the only shot that regular folks have against amoral thugs like Parker and Kirby. Everybody hates lawyers right up until they need one. BTW I'm keenly aware of how self insured companies operate. Companies who are self funded and use 3rd party administrators are quite common. Some, the ones who have morals, values, ethics and a conscience would NEVER come after a guy like Mr McCutchen. Clearly US Airways is not one of those companies.

Just in case you haven't noticed I'm on fire over this one. Hits a real nerve with me. WHY? The contrast between a situation I witnessed with a co-worker and how US treated Mr McCutchen. My employer at the time was a 17 billion dollar company who used Prudential as their 3rd party administrator. The employee we'll call "Dave". Dave was in not one but three rear end collisions while on company business. 2 of the three times he was severely injured and missed 13 months after one accident and 6 months with the other one. Third accident he was out 2 weeks, He had secured substantial settlements in all three. He had nerve damage in one arm, 5 or 6 back surgeries and neck surgery that put pieces of bone in his neck from his hip in order for him to hold his head up. To his credit he never stopped trying to come back to work. He was a great guy and a joy to work with but he was just unable to work any longer. I recall the day some of the HR folks came down and I saw Dave come out of the meeting nearly in tears. I asked "What Happened"? He smiled and said, "They retired me! I have a years severance and 70% of my salary in disability and my pension even though I'm a few years shy of the max they gave me that too". They spent close to a Million bucks on this guy and his settlements were far greater and the company never asked for a dime. In fact they did more then they were required to do.

A tale of two companies. One run by the greedy whore Tempe Clown Posse and another run by men and women of honor. Not every company is an open cesspool like US Airways, it just seems that way.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Upon reading most of the ruling I came away convinced that US Airways is NOT immoral rather amoral instead. NO CASH WAS Illegally gained by Mr MxCuthen, the court said so. The Court ruled that US Airways were greedy little piggies who got caught because Mr McCutcheon wouldn't role bend over and take it up the poop chute. May God bless him and help him recover his health.

Tort law is just fine in this country. It's the only shot that regular folks have against amoral thugs like Parker and Kirby. Everybody hates lawyers right up until they need one. BTW I'm keenly aware of how self insured companies operate. Companies who are self funded and use 3rd party administrators are quite common. Some, the ones who have morals, values, ethics and a conscience would NEVER come after a guy like Mr McCutchen. Clearly US Airways is not one of those companies.

Just in case you haven't noticed I'm on fire over this one. Hits a real nerve with me. WHY? The contrast between a situation I witnessed with a co-worker and how US treated Mr McCutchen. My employer at the time was a 17 billion dollar company who used Prudential as their 3rd party administrator. The employee we'll call "Dave". Dave was in not one but three rear end collisions while on company business. 2 of the three times he was severely injured and missed 13 months after one accident and 6 months with the other one. Third accident he was out 2 weeks, He had secured substantial settlements in all three. He had nerve damage in one arm, 5 or 6 back surgeries and neck surgery that put pieces of bone in his neck from his hip in order for him to hold his head up. To his credit he never stopped trying to come back to work. He was a great guy and a joy to work with but he was just unable to work any longer. I recall the day some of the HR folks came down and I saw Dave come out of the meeting nearly in tears. I asked "What Happened"? He smiled and said, "They retired me! I have a years severance and 70% of my salary in disability and my pension even though I'm a few years shy of the max they gave me that too". They spent close to a Million bucks on this guy and his settlements were far greater and the company never asked for a dime. In fact they did more then they were required to do.

A tale of two companies. One run by the greedy whore Tempe Clown Posse and another run by men and women of honor. Not every company is an open cesspool like US Airways, it just seems that way.

You say you know full well how self-funding and third party admins work but then credit management for providing the funds for "Dave". Those funds came from other employees not management or stockholders. Being generous with other peoples' money is not generosity. If you want to be generous then use your own money, not someone else's. Both companies and their TPAs have a fiduciary responsibility over the funds entrusted to them. One played fast and loose with someone else's funds and one sought to ensure the rules were properly followed and that funds were disbursed in a manner consistent with the pre-defined conditions the members were promised. The better company is the one that ensures equal treatment for all so as to maintain strict controls on premiums for all. I'm not litigious but if I were and was an employee at your former company I would consider a class action suit for their breach of fiduciary responsibility in mismanaging my benefits plan to give "Dave" special treatment that no one else was entitled to.

 

[SparrowHawk]

You say you know full well how self-funding and third party admins work but then credit management for providing the funds for "Dave". Those funds came from other employees not management or stockholders. Being generous with other peoples' money is not generosity. If you want to be generous then use your own money, not someone else's. Both companies and their TPAs have a fiduciary responsibility over the funds entrusted to them. One played fast and loose with someone else's funds and one sought to ensure the rules were properly followed and that funds were disbursed in a manner consistent with the pre-defined conditions the members were promised. The better company is the one that ensures equal treatment for all so as to maintain strict controls on premiums for all. I'm not litigious but if I were and was an employee at your former company I would consider a class action suit for their breach of fiduciary responsibility in mismanaging my benefits plan to give "Dave" special treatment that no one else was entitled to.

The point is you can go on and on ad nausea about fiduciary responsibility. We paid such a nominal percentage of our premium it's not worth mentioning. As a Employee and Spouse we paid less then $600 annually out of pocket in premiums and once we reached a threshold of $3000 everything was paid 100%. It was absolutely terrific insurance and Prudential was very easy to work with. The reason being if you had to get HR involved the company would rip Prudential a new one.

The "Other people's money" argument is a crock of shite just like Kirby. Company pays me a salary, out of the salary the thugs from the IRS confiscate their piece of the action and the company holds back a percentage as an insurance premium. So it's the companies money to do with it as they see fit. In the case I mentioned they decided it was good business to treat their employees a certain way. A way that US Airways is unfamiliar with. Here we are some 17 years later and I'm saying good things about the company. The company is a household word and has a sterling reputation as a great place to work which is yet another stark contrast. The Company had an approach to employees that was essentially "We're going to work your assets off and reward you accordingly". US Airways message to their employees as a result of this and numerous other actions is "We're going to work your assets off, Screw you every chance we get then wring our hands in mock surprise when the customer satisfaction numbers come out"

You're a nice person Golf, I enjoy reading your posts and I get what you're trying to say, however you have to face facts, you work for a company run by amoral scumbags. This court case is but a symptom of the disease that infects many companies and I want to point out that US Airways is neither unique nor one of the worst. In this country there is a right way, a wrong way and the legal and illegal way to treat an employee. Sadly what's right is usually not in alignment with what's legal.