Delta’s Debacle: The Sequel?

In an April 17, 2025 post “Delta Goes Back to Court” I promised to keep you appraised of the current and ongoing litigation. We are well overdue for an update. Two months ago, “four” days after I filed my AIR21 complaint against Delta, the OSHA investigator Andrea Diangco requested an investigatory interview. Not physically. Not via a zoom, but a telephone call. Yet in my first case, it took a full year before I met with the OSHA Investigator, in person no less. Why the rush?

This drama cannot be made up. And the lessons I’m learning will go into the next book. If you have not read the first yet, do so today! Not only could win a car, but you’ll see how evil does not always win. Get your popcorn!

As it turns out, Andrea was not investigating, she was prepared to shut down my case without an interview. More so she either 1) Doesn’t understand how to read regulations or 2) Doesn’t know the law she is supposed to be upholding, or 3) is ‘motivated’ to work on behalf of the employer, or 4) She simply doesn’t give shit, and does’t want to put in the effort. She gets paid either way.

Finally after a plea for her to read the evidence first then meet, Ms. Diangco agreed. I could send her information. At that time she scheduled a teleconference for May 16, 2025. My attorney, Lee Seham flew into town on May 15, 2025. At the time of his travel we thought this was an investigation interview. Not until after he was airborne did she advise me that she was giving us a decision not interviewing.

There was no zoom. Only a telephone call. There were two women on this call. investigator Andrea and her boss the Regional Supervisory Investigator, Megan Eldridge. We never knew who was talking because two women, with similar voices, interchangeably spoke. We thought we were speaking with Andrea the entire time, but apparently her supervisor Megan Eldridge was doing the talking. Until I said, “Andrea,” after something I thought Andrea said, but it was Megan. Then Andrea spoke defending what I’d asked Megan thinking it was Andrea. Confused yet? Try to have a meeting in this manner. I always thought I was talking to Andrea and Megan was the silent listener. I had it backwards. This is the reason for Zoom calls folks. More than two people on a telephone doesn’t work.

Regardless for this non-professional call, they asserted that I did not have a valid complaint under the AIR21 statute because Delta’s actions did not affect the “terms and conditions” of my employment, per part (a) of the statute.

Lee explained that the statute has two parts (a) and (b). Yet, part (a) was the “only” section these women would consider. We know that to be true… because they told us so. The argument ensued. I was the frustrated Complainant, Lee was the patient teacher, and they were obstinate gum chewing, bubble blowing, arm folded, eye rolling teenagers. Nobody was going to tell them anything.

Lee very patiently pointed out that they needed to read the rest of regulation: 29 CFR § 1979.102 (b), which expressly prohibits threatening or blacklisting: “It is a violation of the Act for any air carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier to intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee.

NO! We Don’t Want to Look at That Part!

Both Andrea and Megan refused to look at part b. It was as if they were small children and covering their heads with a blanket. If they couldn’t see it, nobody else could either. It must not exist. This is a similar tactic with Delta’s legal team. Delta argues that I am not an employee and have not been for two years. Yet the law, 49 USC § 42121, defines the term “employee” as:

“Employee means an individual presently or formerly working for an air carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier, an individual applying to work for an air carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier, or an individual whose employment could be affected by an air carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier.”

Mr. Seham went on to explain that the Administrative Review Board (ARB) had held that AIR21 protections extended to former employees who were subject to blacklisting and other post employment retaliatory actions by their former employers, and he even cited numerous cases. They still refused to listen!

An hour later, trying to explain the law to these OSHA investigators to no avail, we were beating our heads against a wall. But I had an idea! I asked them what their definition of “terms and conditions of employment” meant. I was sure that they would understand that it did not apply, if they attempted to define that portion of the regulation. My request was met with “I’m not telling you!” Repeated requests were answered with, “We’re done here!”

I argued that I could prove terms and conditions of “future” employment. They said I could send them additional documents, after they ruled today. Then they would “consider it,” and “undo” their ruling if they accepted that information. But I must have it to them by Tuesday. How ridiculous was this? The appeal clock starts on the day I receive the letter of denial. I explained this. They knew I had them. They had to wait for the information.

I asked, “Why are you in such a hurry? Why not wait to give your decision after you read the documents?” Therefore, they finally agreed. I then provided a document from my employer that a threat of a lawsuit was subject to removal from the company. Lee is not a gambler, yet he bet me $5 they were ruling against me regardless. How could they possibly? The only reason was the conclusion that my loss was due to the “terms and conditions of employment.” I gave them all the information they needed to prove that it was impacted. Guess what?

I Lost 5 bucks!

On Friday, May 30th, these investigators ruled against me. But not for the reason they said on Friday the 16th. Since I provided information that in fact opposed their first rationale, they had to make up another reason.

This time Andrea decided I lost because, “There is no material adverse employment action.” They said that “A Threat of a Lawsuit” is not an adverse action (retaliation). However, the law states in the OSHA Fact Sheet, that “Blacklisting (intentionally interfering with an employee’s ability to obtain future employment)” and “making threats” are both retaliation. A threat of a lawsuit has been previously identified as retaliation.

The reason I filed this AIR21 complaint in the first place was because Delta is trying to blacklist me from being an aviation safety consultant and threatening me with a lawsuit because I reported substandard training as a result of the Endeavor crash. They already threatened my buddy passes because I wrote about their decision to overfly Salt Lake City with a fire on board violating federal regulations and placing passengers lives in danger.

APPEAL Underway!

The first step was to file Objections to the Secretaries Findings. You can read my filing here. Then the fun began. Attorney Lincoln Bisbee reached out to Lee for a request.

Lincoln Bisbee is a story of his own. He sits on left in the photo above, as both he and Ira Rosenstein were the attorneys of record in my first case. If you have read my novels you’ll understand that Bisbee is an aggressive, angry, elf. Okay…in real life he’s not actually an elf, he’s an asshole. He also lies. During trial he told the judge we never disclosed the intention to have Aviation Safety Expert, John Nance, testify. I have the legally submitted document that proves we did. He also yells. And only because Lee asked him not to yell, and then he yelled, “I’m not yelling!!!!” did we decide to video future depositions. The first was Jim Graham. I told Lee that if Bisbee showed up and behaved properly, his attitude was an act. If he had no emotional control, he would not be there. Bisbee no-showed. Delta is now panicking and has gone off their rails over this new case.

The first time they engaged in a war of attrition. That didn’t work so well. This time they are jumping the gate and behaving oddly. I’m hoping that old saying “Haste makes waste” applies here.

OSHA ruled in Delta’s favor. We are supposed to file an objection and then appeal the case. Not Delta. But Delta doesn’t like the OSHA ruling, despite their winning. OSHA admits that I am a “former employee” and I was covered under the law, but Delta says I’m not am not an employee. Delta’s attorney Lincoln Bisbee apparently does not understand the law, or he simply doesn’t care what he says.

DELTA is in a Panic!

Bisbee told Lee that he planned to file a motion to stay discovery, including initial disclosures, and asked if Lee if he would agree to that action. Then he proposed that the parties agree to an “expedited” briefing schedule given the upcoming initial disclosures deadline.  He said, “Specifically, we propose that Delta file its motion tomorrow (June 17) and that Dr. Petitt file her opposition next Tuesday, June 24.  If you do not consent to a stay, could you please let us know if you agree to this briefing schedule? ”     

Lee said, “Please advise if Delta would, in exchange for the stay of discovery requested, agree to release any claims it may have with respect to Dr. Petitt’s past publications.”

Bisbee said, “Delta does not agree to your proposal.”

Lee did not agree to his proposal for the expedited schedule. Delta subsequently filed. Read Delta’s Motion to Stay Discovery here.

DELTA OBJECTS TO THE SECRETARY’s Findings

Lee Seham has been litigating AIR21 cases for “24” years and said:

“I have never seen an employer file an objection before… when a case has been dismissed.”

Delta not only filed an objection, despite the case being dismissed, but we don’t even have a judge yet! We requested Judge Morris because he was familiar with the first case, and I believe he would be very interested in the retaliation I received after trial all they way up to my retirement as well as years after. Judges are always assigned if they have knowledge of the case. That only makes sense and lowers the workload, expediting the process. It’s a real thing.

Bisbee writes in his argument that, “Complainant presumably believes (erroneously) that Judge Morris will be predisposed to decide Complainant’s Objections in Complainant’s favor simply because he presided over a prior matter between the parties.” Was Delta slandering me or the judge? I had to read that twice.

Wait… Bisbee wrote “erroneously,” therefore he asserts that Delta does not believe Judge Morris will rule in my favor for the reasons they said. Why are they arguing to keep him out? Why spend 3 of a 4 page brief to ague against the judge? The plot thickens. Delta does not want Morris. Why do you think? If you haven’t heard of the first case read the article, Delta ‘weaponized’ mental health rules against a pilot. She fought back

Notwithstanding that “former” employees are protected under the law. Read Delta’s Entire Objection HERE.

On June 30, 2024 Lee filed our “Opposition to respondent Delta Air Lines, inc.’s motion for stay and protective order and request for expedited briefing schedule.”

The dirt is flying. I have so many stories of Ira and Lincoln and Delta’s dirty tactics to share along the way. But if you want to read, “verbatim” what they said, did, and how they behaved during depositions and trial, read the novels Flight for Discovery and Flight for Safety Have some fun summer reading, which gives you a chance to win a 1997 Mitsubishi Spider Eclipse. If you purchase any books on audible or kindle, email me and I’ll add your name. If you purchase off my website, I have that information and will enter your name. If you win and live International, you can can find a buyer, I’ll sell if for you, and then send you the money. Good luck!

Remember: Truth is Stranger Than Fiction