New Trial in Goesling v. American Airlines?
Lawyers for the retired FA find a shocking error in jury instructions. PLUS: updates on historical assaults at American Airlines
It’s not over yet. In a shocking turn of events, Kimberly Goesling’s legal team has discovered a major error in instructions to the jury in her sexual assault case against American Airlines— and they’ve asked for a new trial due to the serious nature of the error.
Last week, a jury decided they believed that Goesling was sexually assaulted while on the job in Germany, but that her employer, American Airlines, was not responsible for what happened to her despite detailed testimony about the hours leading up to her assault that was both chilling and credible.
But Goesling’s legal team Wednesday revealed a motion asking the court to set aside the verdict and order a new trial. (Read the motion here).
When Goesling’s legal team read the jury’s verdict form after the trial, they noticed one of the questions the jury had to answer included a line the plaintiff’s lawyers had objected to in court, and which the court had agreed to remove, according to a press release.
“This isn’t a legal technicality. This is the court giving the jurors an instruction that does not follow the law,” says attorney Rob Miller of Miller Bryant LLP in Dallas. “That’s crucial because after the verdict, we spoke with some of the jurors and the portion we’re talking about is what tripped them up.”
The motion details the problematic instruction, which involves an “improper” and “harmful” line in a question provided for the jury’s consideration that should have been removed before being handed to the jury. According to the motion, it was not:
You are instructed that, even if Brett Hooyerink supplied Mark Sargeant with the means of committing a sexual assault, Brett Hooyerink is not liable if he has no reason to suppose that a sexual assault will be committed.
“This Court should grant Goesling a new trial because the written Charge the Court provided to the jury contained an improper, harmful instruction to Question №3, which probably caused rendition of an improper verdict,” the motion reads. “Further, this Court should grant Goesling a new trial in the interest of justice.”
Chilling Testimony
At issue in the case is American Airlines’ culpability in Goesling’s assault . Then-American Airlines-exec Brett Hooyerink, the court was told, nudged British “celebrity” chef Mark Sargeant — who was also on that trip—to go after the flight attendant on the night of the assault.
In a move that will send chills through any woman who knows how careful we have to be when traveling, after a night of reportedly heavy drinking by some, Hooyerink gave Sargeant Goesling’s room number.
Incidentally, Hooyerink’s Twitter bio claims he makes “airplane food sexy.”
According to Sargeant, Hooyerink told him that Goesling was attracted to Sargeant and that she “was up for it.” Sargeant testified he decided to go to Goesling’s room, uninvited, because “I thought there was a mutual attraction, and I wanted to take it further.”
The assault happened at the Sheraton Frankfurt airport hotel in January of 2018. Apparently Hooyerink went back that way a few months later, as the apparently excited exec Tweeted in August of 2018, “Ordering a Boarding Pass. Traveling in Business Class. This is the name of the game. #petshopboys #dfw #frankfurt #longhaulflight #nightynight #layflat casper @ Dallas Fort Worth.”
American hired Sargeant without conducting a background check, according to Goesling’s legal team, which adds in a press release that Evidence in the case showed the airline continued to employ him even after learning of prior allegations against him for alcohol abuse and inappropriate conduct around women.
Sargeant denies assaulting Goesling. Hooeryink denies encouraging Sargeant to go after Goesling.
As attorney Miller has previously said, “American is responsible because it hired the predator, it provided the alcohol he drank and then its managers encouraged him to go to Kimberly’s room,” said her attorney Robert Miller of the Dallas-based law firm Miller Bryant LLP.
Goesling is seeking nearly $26 million in damages.
The latest on the many other assaults at American Airlines…
A few of you now have told me relevant parties in Australia have contacted the media there to get the story of American Airlines continually allegedly covering up sexual assaults on employees by employees out to a broader audience, and that a few reporters are investigating.
I’m not sure what exactly they’re examining or how broad their reporting, and I’d love to hear more. We’ve reached thousands of people here since October, but those publications would reach hundreds of thousands.
Credit to all of you for your relentless pursuit of making your voices heard. I know you’ve been reaching out to (all male?) aviation writers for decades, and continue to be ignored (I noticed a snippy and dismissive note from “Admiral Cloudberg” on his Reddit post).
I can feel it changing. Something’s going to give.
I have my doubts it will be the Aussie mainstream publications, though, based on the reactions of some U.S.-based journos I’ve spoken to, but on this occasion I hope I’m wrong. It continues to be something the mainstream media finds unimportant and more trouble than it’s worth. For now. Again, I hope I’m wrong.
I’d love to hear updates.
Keep me posted!
