Delta Air Lines Deception

History:

In my first case I learned that Delta attorneys cited cases that either had no relevance at all, or they wrote false assertions. Why would they misrepresent these cases if they were easily verifiable? Because nobody checks. The judge will not look up and review the case law. And if your attorney lacks knowledge of the case and doesn’t take the time to review it, then these false statements prevail. 

History Repeats

On September 3, 2025, Delta filed their motion to dismiss. They listed 33 cases, 16 federal statutes and 3 references to Merriam Dictionary. Why would Delta list so many cases? Because, this presents the “illusion” that there are four pages of legal references supporting their argument, when there is not. I believe this is a legal maneuver to deceive the judge. While some of the cases might apply, the AIR21 statute is a two part statute so even those cases that do apply are only half the story.

So, I began at the beginning to see how much they fabricated this time. This is a sample of what I found.

To begin with, Delta asserts: “She does not allege that any of her statements about an event that happened in 2025 were based on information she learned while employed by Delta.” Delta is wrong. On February 18, 2025, I wrote Miracle in Toronto. Everything I wrote was with respect to what happened when I was at Delta with substandard training that was never resolved, and the fact that the very person I gave my safety report to, Jim Graham, was the CEO of Endeavor. This was just days before Delta threatened me.

Delta says: “First is the canon that repetition of the same word in the same statute—here, in the same sentence of the same statute—usually implies that the word has the same meaning in both places. See, e.g., Atl. Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 433 (1932). Since “discharge an employee” refers to current employees, “otherwise discriminate against an employee” also refers to current employees.”

I read the case brief. I then did a word search for the quoted (bold font) statements that Delta wrote and nothing turned up in the case. I then learned that this case has absolutely nothing to do with an AIR21 statute, or even retaliation.

Atl. Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427 (1932) Is a case regarding a “conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case is whether the business was a “trade” or “commerce” and has nothing to do with “discharging employees” or “discriminating” against employees.

Delta says: “Otherwise” means “in a different way or manner.” Begay v. United States,553 U.S. 137, 144 (2008) “

Begay v. United States is actually a case that “The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a determination that defendant’s prior driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) convictions under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-8-102 were “violent felonies” as 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Armed Career Criminal Act defined it.

Begay actually says “The Government’s argument that the word “otherwise” just after the examples is sufficient to demonstrate that they do not limit the clause’s scope is rejected because “otherwise” can refer to a crime that is, e.g., similar to the examples in respect to the degree of risk it produces, but different in respect to the way or manner in which it produces that risk. Pp. 4-7.

But AIR21 is not a case of crime. Well, the only crime is Delta being allowed to operate without any accountability. Furthermore, another reference to their quote (in a different way or manner): “but this one “otherwise” in this context means “‘in a different way or manner.'”” The part Delta missed was “in this context“… this is NOT the same context as they used it.

Delta says, Thus, the Supreme Court explained that an “otherwise” phrase must “cover some set of matters not specifically contemplated by” the preceding phrase. Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. 480, 486 (2024)  (p9)

No there is nothing that states “must” and that case is with respect to corruptly obstructing an official proceeding with respect to 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). Nothing to do with the AIR21 statute.

18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) is a federal law that criminalizes corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding or attempting to do so, and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison or a fine. The Supreme Court clarified in Fischer v. United States that for a conviction under this provision, the government must prove the defendant’s actions were aimed at impairing the availability or integrity of evidence for the proceeding, and not simply a broad catch-all obstruction

As stated: The “otherwise” clause of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1512(c)(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specified in 18 U.S.C.S. § 1512(c)(1). Thus, to prove a violation of § 1512(c)(2), the Government had to establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so. Not relevant and out of context.

Delta says, (“A person who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of subsection (a) may . . . file . . . a complaint”), That variation in wording is highly significant. “In a given statute, . . . different terms usually have different meanings.” Pulsifer v. United States, 601 U.S. 124, 149 (2024) (citing A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 170-71 (2012)).

While Delta asserts the variation in wording is “highly significant” they fail to identify that this is also a criminal case and that the statute does not say “always” but say’s “usually.” This is a small point, but when someone asserts the significance of “different meanings,” they should understand the distinction between usually and always.

The above are just a few samples, because I do not have the energy to read all their cases. This was enough for me to drain the remaining energy I had today.

While some of their cases are applicable to AIR21, they only focused on one side of the law. Which, in this case is not deception, just arguing what they can. Forgetting the part that is convenient to ignore, because it goes against their case. So, we’ll give them that. Their final argument is supplying case law that a “threat” of a lawsuit is not an adverse action. However, two points. 1) in the AIR21 statute’s list of adverse actions it specifically states, “Threat”, and 2) a threat of a lawsuit has a different meaning to me. Delta enacted a war of attrition and did everything possible to destroy me professionally, and personally. While they took my health, and at the end of the day my career, they never addressed their safety lapses. Therefore, a threat by Delta has a different connotation and the results were nothing short of PTSD. Nobody can survive seven years of litigation not go back to that pain.

I will post both Delta’s Motion to Dismiss along with my Opposition at the same time, after we file ours, That way you can read them sequentially. For now, enjoy the entertainment of my attorney Lee Seham. It’s a catchy little tune. Remember, it’s better to laugh than cry.

What a Wonderful World

Get your copy of AIR21 Delta’s Debacle, Legal Lessons Learned and Shared to Save Your Career and Improve Safety.