A judge has ruled that Delta Air Lines unfairly discriminated against a whistleblowing pilot by calling into question her psychiatric health.
Judge Rules Delta Discriminated Against Pilot Who Expressed Safety Concerns
Karlene Petitt earned a PHD in aviation safety from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University. She has also been a pilot for more than 40 years and is a First Officer with Northwest and later Delta. She submitted a report to mangers outlining issues she noted with fatigue, pilot training, and Delta’s safety management system.
Her lawsuit claimed that rather than thanking her, Delta grounded her then sent her to a company doctor for a psychiatric examination. There, Petitt was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and placed on paid leave.
At the time, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Steve Dickson was overseeing pilots at Delta. During the lawsuit, Dickson provided deposition testimony. In his ruling on the matter, U.S. Department of Labor Judge Scott Morris wrote that he “finds less than credible Captain Dickson’s deposition testimony” and noted many of his responses were “evasive.” Dickson said he failed to recall specific details about the incident.
Judge Morris deemed Petitt’s legal team had demonstrated discriminatory retaliation and held Delta had “unlawfully discriminated against [her] in the form of a career defining Section 15 metal health evaluation.”
The decision noted that “any allegation of a mental health deficiency for a professional pilot can be fatal to their career.” It also said that “to formally question a pilot’s mental fitness stigmatizes that pilot in the eyes of the close-knit aviation community, regardless of the ultimate outcome.” Petitt’s is harmed by “medical records that will forever be in her FAA medical file,” the decision said.
But a Delta spokesperson notes Delta intends to appeal the ruling.
“We disagree with the administrative law judge’s ruling and intend to appeal.”
The spokesperson also noted that Petitt’s claims were carefully investigated and that she was not retaliated against.
CONCLUSION
It’s an interesting case in the sense that I can see both sides. Yes, there appeared to be retaliatory discrimination based upon Petitt stirring the pot. At the same time, we’ve all seen the PHDs who think they have all the answers and I cannot imagine Delta would just ignore her input if it had any merit. We’ll keep an eye on this case as it works its way through the appeals process.
image: Karlene Petitt / Facebook
Often there’s more to a case than is in the motions and complaint (lawsuit).
Indeed there is. What more do you think is going on?
Could be that she is abrasive. Could be maybe something is odd going on because she’s been a pilot for a long time but is not a captain. Could be that the Delta supervisor is corrupt. Could be a combination of the above. Most likely, there are some psychiatric issues but maybe not the the level of not being fit to work.
In some cases, I have a sneaky suspicion that one party or another is much more wrong but in this case, I cannot see this. Maybe reading the original complaint might shed some light. I have Pacer (online look up of federal court cases) but I’m too busy in the next few days to do so.
If you want, feel free to send it my way and I’ll read it. I tired to access it but did not want to pay.
Which court? Northern District, Georgia (federal court)? Who are possible parties? FYI (Live and Let’s Fly readers), with Pacer, you can look up for free the case number and search by names. To actually see the docket (list of motions filed, complaint, etc.) or to see the papers, you have to pay per page but there is a maximum charge of something like $3. If after one quarter (3 months), your charges are less than $30, the charges are cancelled. Anyone can sign up for it.
I try not to use these comments as a messaging system but I would not mind to add an avatar. I don’t know how to do it. I wouldn’t mind this comment being deleted after reading it.
She complains about a serious problem within her area of expertise and Delta responds by having her declared bipolar? I’m absolutely not a fan of conspiracy theories but this situation smells really fishy.
It will probably remain fishy. Matthew is a lawyer. I am not. But my understanding of federal appeals courts is they often do not decide on the facts. The facts have been decided at the District Court level. The appeals is mostly concerned about the process and if there were any violations of process. Appeals courts are not supposed to be a rematch. Also which appeals court matters. The 4th Circuit is sometimes called the 4th Circus for being unfair. Georgia is not in the 4th, I believe. SC and NC are.
These are all valid issues that are addressed on a daily basis via an Operational Risk Management (ORM) worksheet prior to flight. If she is addressing further issues with this in her workplace, she has every right to.
I have been in the aviation business for over 20 years (military/civilian) and every company must have these programs in place and have a process to review them in accordance with FAA guidelines. To me it appears that she found an issue, addressed it and sought to help rather than hurt her organization.
As a graduate myself from Embry-Riddle, not playing favorites here, and with similar degrees, I have written about this and integrated my education in improving my organizations safety protocols. This has helped redefine the operational goals of my organization and made our flight operations much safer.
Hopefully she gets past this and wins!
The law firm representing her (https://www.ssmplaw.com/) has the trial transcript and some of the depositions on their website. DOL’s website has the decisions and orders of the admin law judge. This summer I read/watched about 80% of the material. I had a hard time figuring who is the guilty party. Petitt’s actions at times seemed just odd from a pilot and the company’s actions seemed drastic.
Just from reading FAA testimony was vague or elusive, certainly he would have notes to refresh his memory. Was she harassed before and during her evaluations, if enough stress was applied she would have even started to question herself. We know in military( airlines are operated in military fashion) there are far too many incidents of harassment, intimidation and coverups. What was she reporting that even FAA was willing to disregard enough to discredit her.
This just smells. I retired from one of these two airlines and worked previously for other. I would hope a woman non military pilot would be represented fairly. I was married to a pilot from these airlines and believe me pilots cover for each other, its a brotherhood. Did she have other medical evaluations? Not airline affiliated?Her career is doomed. Hope she gets a settlement for her years of service.
Thank you for talking about situations like this. Now, when the struggle for women’s rights has reached a more decent level, such statements from the employer are simply unacceptable. I believe that regardless of the gender of the employee, everyone should be treated with respect and only look back at the professional training of employees. It seems that these non-discriminatory practices are long gone. It seems that we are all civilized people for a long time. Unfortunately, this also happens. I really hope that this will not leave a mark on the life of this person.
press release…….
JUDGE FINDS DELTA AIRLINES LIABLE FOR
RETALIATION AGAINST FEMALE PILOT WHISTLEBLOWER
DECISION CONDEMNS USE OF
COMPULSORY PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION AS A “WEAPON”
SEVERE CRITICISM OF HIGH LEVEL DELTA MANAGEMENT
INCLUDING FAA ADMINISTRATOR STEVEN DICKSON
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.”
Additionally. Here is the decision which you can download the PDF file. https://www.ssmplaw.com/petitt-decision/