At the beginning, Katie Molloy the SWA Attorney confirmed that the Christine added to her complaint that Captain Haak said he was going to crash the airplane and she therefore felt fear for her life and the lives of her passengers. Then SWA attorney Katie Molloy argued that: 

I'm wondering if a kid was standing by a garbage can and an adult threw their scalding cup of coffee at the garbage can but missed, hitting the little one, would that person be exempt from causing harm? Interesting enough, I did a little research and learned that in jail it's illegal to throw body fluids at someone. Why? Because they are detained and can't get away and just being exposed to bodily fluids (without actual contact) is considered a third degree felony of battery in the state of Florida. I would suspect a flight deck is in sense could be considered similar to a prison being the pilots are locked in and cannot flee. 

I'm also not sure about other pilots, but never in my 40 years of aviation experience have I ever been hit with garbage that was intended for the garbage can. Those bags are to the side, but actually behind the pilot. I would assert, based upon my experience, that he was not aiming for the trash. 

The SWA argument is that Haak locked the door from the inside to prevent others from coming in, not to confine Janning or prevent her from leaving. That bolt lock was at the top of the door. Haak moved from his seat to the jump seat with his naked legs blocking the door, he then stood naked, and blocked the door. He just didn't masterbate in his seat, he was all over the place. Regardless, the SWA argument is suggesting Janning could have gotten up and left. I'm not even going to justify that with an argument of my own. But I will say this: 

SWA, You Should Thank Christine

Not defend Haak's behavior. 

Had Christine got up and left that flight deck, after he was back in his seat, we could be reading a completely different story. Close to 80 people could have perished on that flight, along with those on the ground, if Haak followed through with his threat of going out with a bang. The passengers on SWA Flight 6607, on August 10, 2020, from Philadelphia to Orlando, should also thank Christine for enduring what she did on their behalf. If they knew what was ongoing in that flightdeck, I believe they would have a multi plaintiff lawsuit as well. 

The Conspiracy to Retaliate was argued by both SWA and SWAPA attorneys, Katie Molloy and Ellen Belfer, respectively, in that there could not be a conspiracy to retaliate because of an inter-corporate conspiracy doctrine, because they are all the “SAME corporate identity” and “there is no third party.” 

Regardless of this argument, a union and a company are two completely different companies. But I find this argument humorous because both SWAPA and SWA are admitting they work together as one. Would that mean that ALPA is the same entity with United, Delta and all others they represent? I find Christine's argument of conspiracy brilliant, because, from my experience, even when the union and company admit to being on the same side, you can't win a DFR.

ELLEN BELFER, SWAPA ATTORNEY ARGUES... 

By the time Ellen chimed in, she stated that not everyone at the hearing had stated their appearance. She said, "I see there is George G a Karlene Petitt and a B." This reminded me of my first day of my trial when Ira Rosenstein, Delta's attorney, said, "Your honor, who are all these people. We don't know who they are." Judge Morris told him that this was a public trial and it was not necessary to know. 

Well, this, too, was a public hearing, but Judge Netcher said he was fine with that, and he started with Carly, who was Belfer's partner. Then Netcher told us he got notification that B left the meeting, and couldn't tell us who B was. He said, "They left after learning that they were going to be identified, so we have somebody monitoring us apparently." I'm curious what monitoring means, if you are watching a public hearing. 

Then Belfer identified all client representatives for SWAPA and said, "Petitt and somebody else just left, so it looks like the only one unknown is still in the meeting."  The judge asked me if I wanted to make an appearance and I said, "Hi, I'm Karlene Petitt." He then asked if I was representing any parties. I told him I was not representing any parties but just observing the case . Then Netcher said, "OK this is a public proceeding so I will mute you and we will proceed." They did not ask any of the additional phone numbers that had called in as I think there were phone numbers listed, without names. 

The entire point of this hearing was that SWAPA and SWA are trying to block discovery. They want to dismiss the claim before discovery is obtained. Of course they do.