|I reiterate, no half-decent law firm would release a statement that they couldn't back up with other documentation. For example, statements as to policies would be checked against the precise wording of the actual policies. Statements about what took place in disciplinary cases would be cross-checked against the records of such cases. Etc. Written dated reports of past meetings are not "opinion". I don't think even Ms. Lewis is trying to deny that she was habitually late, or disciplined multiple times.
The drinking itself was unproven, yes. The removal from the flight, most definitely was not unproven, and was most certainly a disciplinary event. What do you think a letter on your file is? (If the drinking HAD actually been proven, she would have been terminated immediately). The fact that a captain saw fit to remove her from a flight due to his suspicions is a big deal, in any occupation, but especially for a member of a flight crew. How is the mention of this, along with the lengthy list of other disciplinary issues, not relevant to the complainant's credibility? Mudslinging? More like an illustration of a pretty obvious pattern.
If WJ believed Ms Lewis's employment needed to be terminated, WJ should have ensured that they terminated her based on a trigger event that WJ was not partly to blame in creating.
What nonsense. WestJet was slow to give Ms. Lewis her employee file, so she had no choice but to swear at her manager, so WestJet is "partly to blame", is that it? Sorry, but "frustration" isn't a legitimate defence for insubordination. Some people need to grow up. An employer/employee relationship is a professional one. You can't be flippant and swear at your bosses. Add it to the laundry list of other well-documented problems in her employment past, and you can't seriously think Westjet should offer her money.