The Dark Side of Legal Expenses: Meet Nycole Laundry

[Golden Flyer]

With the cost of a three-day civil trial estimated at $60,738 – more than a year's income for most households – Canadians are being driven to financial and emotional ruin by a justice system that's priced itself solidly out of reach.

Some have gone bankrupt pursuing their legal rights. Others end up in court without a lawyer, where they are quickly overwhelmed. One Ontario man was jailed for contempt of court in 2005 after clumsily arguing his own case. An underfunded legal aid system limps along – and even the poor are often considered too rich to qualify.

One measure of the system is to consider its winners. Nycole Landry is one of them. Unfairly fired from her $28,000 job as an airline pilot, she ultimately won her case and was awarded damages, but "victory" took more than a decade and left her career in tatters.

The principle of justice for all, embodied by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is in danger of becoming a cliché

Nycole Laundry

Landry arrived on Baffin Island 20 years ago, the newest employee of Bradley Air Services. She had long dreamed of being a pilot and did well at flight school, but graduated during a recession, when jobs were scarce. She started in Iqaluit as a dispatcher, but soon qualified to pilot a 12-passenger Twin Otter.

Seen as hardworking, conscientious and friendly, she was promoted to second officer on a Boeing 727 the next year. By the fall of 1989, Landry started training on the Hawker Siddeley 748, a passenger and cargo carrier considered challenging to handle. She struggled to land the plane in crosswinds, a constant challenge in the north. Landry failed a flight test, but tried again after returning from maternity leave. It did not go well.

On a flight between Iqaluit and Broughton Island, the captain tested her for a simulated engine failure. Landry was out of practice, nervous and caused the plane to roll. She failed and rescheduled another test. In the meantime, she learned the company planned to get rid of her. Told she wasn't cut out to be a pilot, she was fired in 1993.


FULL STORY:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/187853

[altiplano]

I agree that the justice system is inaccessable for most canadians. The state it is in now is hypocritical to it's primary purpose of ensuring equal access to justice.

Good for this woman that she was somewhat vindicated in the end but if I was "rolling" airplanes on simulated engine out drills and failing rides I would expect to get fired... So I'm not sure if justice was actually served in this case. Maybe they should have sat her back sideways or sent her to work in flight ops or something...

Anyways - do you sell those solar hot water heaters linked to at the bottom? That's pretty cool - when I achieve my someday plan of getting off the grid I'll be sure to look for them.

[xsbank]

From right seat in a twotter to SO on a jet to right seat on a 748 and you think she should expect to get fired?

Maybe instead of being so judgemental you might just think for a moment about what it would be like to be in her shoes? And to have maternity leave in the middle of it all, too?

Talk about pilots eating their young.

[altiplano]

From right seat in a twotter to SO on a jet to right seat on a 748 and you think she should expect to get fired?

Maybe instead of being so judgemental you might just think for a moment about what it would be like to be in her shoes? And to have maternity leave in the middle of it all, too?

Talk about pilots eating their young.

xs -

I never wrote that she should expect to get fired. And I really don't think her progression through the company should have anything to do with her eventual washing out. I think companies do have a responsibility to their employees and should work with them to help them through difficulties. But...

I wrote I would expect to get fired if I:
1 - failed rides
2 - "rolled" the aircraft in simulated engine out drills
3 - couldn't land in a crosswind

I said maybe the company should have put her back to s/o or retrained her for another position. I wrote "good for this woman that she was somewhat vindicated (by the court decision)." Because hey - if I felt wronged - irregardless of right or wrong - I would try to do something about it too. So maybe you should stop being so judgemental?

[Nark]

First off, irregardless is not a word.

And two, I agree with the basic's of Nycole being canned. If she couldn't handle the plane she was in, may be should look down, grab a pair (ovaries) and say, "hey put me back on the twotter, the hawker is too much."

It's not that pilots eats their young (which they do at times) it is also they are afraid to step up to whatever is confronting them.




The legal system is in need of a serious overhaul, both in Canada and the US (for me). This is why shitty show's like Judge Judy are popular, people can't afford a real court so they go to these tv show's (which are not actual courts)

[gr8gazu]

Unfortunately, Judge Judy is exactly the kind of legal options that are available to all Canadians. There are minimal fees associated with filing a small claim ie: less than $10,000. You do represent yourself and present to a Judge (normally a retired Judge) who firstly attempts to mediate a settlement, failing which, hears the whole case and makes a decision.

Why people go on those type of shows is beyond me as it is a lot like an appearance of Jerry Springer. The upside is that the settlement is paid by the production company.

There have been some improvements over the past 5 years pertaining to employment law. Firstly, wrongful dismissal suits must now be settled within 18 months of filing which prevents those employers with deep pockets from running the former employee out of funds. Secondly, some lawyers will take a case for a retainer and a percentage of the winnings which also allows access to the legal system. This was previously disallowed under the Harris government in an attempt to control frivolous suits.

I am not claiming we have a good system, but for labour laws, there are some options. Is it worth it? That is the real question.... Gains are usually minimal, expenses can be extreme, damage to reputation can be career altering (and not in a good way).

[2R]

No justice No peace

As the inequities in society widen .As the justice system prices itself out of relevance .Law and order becomes an irrelevance .

It looks like she got a raw deal on a revenue flight ,but i should know better than forming an opinion based on anything in the star.

[CD]

First off, irregardless is not a word.

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

[Golden Flyer]

First off, irregardless is not a word.

You don't here it too often in Canada. If you're in New York, you'll here it circulating a few times. As the above poster mentioned, it's a merger between irrespective and regardless:Irregardless.

A linguist wouldn't use it because of this:

By blending these words, an illogical word is created. "Since the prefix ir- means 'not' (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means 'without,' irregardless is a double negative."

**However, its still used in speeches.

[flyinphil]

Yes, I believe CD already made that point.

[Driving Rain]

Like a Yank asked me once...When do you guys up here in Canada unthaw? I said you mean thaw don't you? He thought for a moment and realized how stupid he sounded. To cover his embarrassment tried to start a fight.

I've heard Bush use the the word irregardless in 3 speechess. Did you know it's treason to disagree and contradict your commander and chief Nark?
Now report to the Brig at once and confess or I swear I'll send your offending post to the JAG

Nark wrote:
First off, irregardless is not a word.

[Rudy]

"He ordered the company to pay Landry $80,000 for lost wages, $100,000 for pain and suffering, and $50,000 in punitive damages. Brault also awarded her $47,000 for job retraining." Maybe I'll take a dive on my next flight test.

[Donald]

I'm guessing there are 3 or 4 different versions of the truth out there...

Any 7F'ers past/present/YFB/YZF care to comment?

[LuckyPilot]

I rather expect FirstAir had to cover her legal bills as well. In the end of the day, I think they would have not fired her if they knew what the out come would be, that's alot of cash. You could have made her a permanent F/O or a S/O and eventually she would have left on her own.

IMO

[rigpiggy]

Most companies have a policy of three strikes your out some even less.

Presently our collective holds that if an f/o muffs 2 rides, further employment is subject to company. a captain is given two rides, if he blows both, he does the f/o ride, if he blows that same as above. Now there has to be further training between each ride. You don't have the same examiner, and you have the option of TC doing the ride. Don't know what 7F has in their manual.

Now the 748 doesn't have a sim, so all training is in the A/C. It's "armstrong steering" so you either need some muscles or know to trim. The engine failures also happen above V1 so you should have better control. Now Pang Res, and the rest have some fairly serious pucker factor. Especially when it's windy, which is pretty much all the time. She won her case, so they obviously felt there was some prejudicial bias. But ask yourself how many people that you've flown with that you would be uncomfortable having your family fly with?

[xsbank]

"...but if I was "rolling" airplanes on simulated engine out drills and failing rides I would expect to get fired..." Sorry Altiplano, maybe I misinterpreted that comment.

I'm glad she won, I'm sorry it was so painful to accomplish and I hope it is another nail in the coffin of the bad old days of aviation.

If she was a pilot for their company for a few years there should have been some loyalty on their part and some significant training invested in her. To give up on her and fire her was crap.

The only ride I ever failed was the week my father died and it was because my company believed in me they gave me some more training and another ride and I spent almost 21 years with 'em.

To spend so many years looking for 'justice' is complete crap. Another reason to keep paying those taxes gang, so we can rely on the 'systems' to help us out when we get screwed.

Now all I need is to get picked up and tortured so I will have enough money for retirement.

[Cat Driver]

" If she was a pilot for their company for a few years there should have been some loyalty on their part and some significant training invested in her. To give up on her and fire her was crap. "

Exactly.

[Spokes]

First off, irregardless is not a word.

You don't here it too often in Canada. If you're in New York, you'll here it circulating a few times. As the above poster mentioned, it's a merger between irrespective and regardless:Irregardless.

A linguist wouldn't use it because of this:

By blending these words, an illogical word is created. "Since the prefix ir- means 'not' (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means 'without,' irregardless is a double negative."

**However, its still used in speeches.

Your point is not without merit....

[Nark]

Okay, I'll admit I was wrong. Irregardless, will never be used in my vocab, just for spite now.

I'll go knock on the Staff Judge Advocate's door as soon as I press "submit."

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[Donald]

If that's the case, wouldn't it have been obvious during training on the -6? Why keep re-training and promoting the pilot if they aren't performing satisfactorily? Was the hope that this individual would just sit backseat forever on the 727?