Ex-flight attendant’s lawyers ask for new trial in American Airlines sexual assault case
Lawyers for a former American Airlines flight attendant requested a new trial Tuesday after a jury found the airline was not responsible for the woman’s sexual assault while on a work trip.
Lawyers for Kimberly Goesling say that a “crucial” change in the instructions given to jurors may have been the reason why jurors did not find American Airlines responsible for the sexual assault. After a three-week trial in Tarrant County, the jury determined on May 11 that celebrity chef Mark Sargeant did assault Goesling, but the airline itself had no responsibility in the attack.
The crux of the case was whether or not American Airlines could be held liable for causing Goesling emotional and physical harm. Jurors were asked a series of questions to determine whether this was the case. By answering yes or no to those questions, the jury came to a verdict in the lawsuit. But the way one of the questions was phrased changed the legal criteria for whether American was responsible or not for the assault, Goesling’s lawyers said.
“In 35 years of law practice, I’ve never seen anything like this,” Goesling’s attorney Rob Miller of Miller Bryant LLP in Dallas said. “I’m gonna be respectful to judges and their courts even if I don’t like what’s happening, because I respect the system, but this is strange.”
The instructions to jurors were approved by both sides before the trial, but the written questions were changed when they were given to jurors, according to court documents. Goesling’s lawyers argue the change caused jurors to side with American Airlines, which is based in Fort Worth. Goesling’s attorneys only found out about the change after the jury reached a verdict.
“This isn’t a legal technicality. This is the court giving the jurors an instruction that does not follow the law,” Miller said in a statement. “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.”
When asked about the verdict, American Airlines referred the Star-Telegram to the statement it gave last week about the trial.
“The jury’s decision confirms that American does not tolerate inappropriate sexual conduct of any kind,” the statement said. “We remain steadfast in our commitment to our team members and to providing a safe and comfortable environment for everyone who works at our airline.”
According to Goesling’s lawsuit, American Airlines managers got drunk with Sargeant, encouraged him to pursue Goesling and gave him her hotel room number. Throughout the trial, Goesling’s lawyers also argued the airline contracted with Sargeant — and continued to employee him — despite reports of inappropriate behavior toward women and a history of alcohol abuse.
Sargeant has not been criminally charged in the alleged assault, in which Goesling says he forced his way into her hotel room in Germany in 2018 and sexually assaulted her. American Airlines’ attorneys argued that if Sargeant assaulted Goesling, he should face punishment — not the airline.
The airline’s liability depended on a few factors. First, jurors had to determine that Sargeant did, in fact, sexually assault Goesling. The jury did so. The jury also had to determine if former manager Brett Hooyerink, who was supervising staff on the trip, was acting “in vice principal” — meaning his actions represented American Airlines. The jury decided that was true, too.
The next piece of the verdict focused on whether the airline — acting through Hooyerink — assisted or participated in the assault. In his testimony, Sargeant said Hooyerink got drunk with him the night of the trip, and Hooyerink told him Goesling seemed sexually interested in Sargeant. According to Sargeant, he couldn’t remember how he got Goesling’s hotel room number.
In a pre-trial interview, Hooyerink initially said he “could not rule out” whether he encouraged Sargeant to pursue Goeseling, but during his testimony, he denied it.
According to Goesling’s lawyers, Hooyerink did not need to foresee or suspect Sargeant would assault Goesling in order for American Airlines to legally be responsible for the assault.
However, that is not how the question to jurors was phrased. According to court documents, jurors were told via written instructions that, “Hooyerink is not liable if he has no reason to suppose that a sexual assault will be committed.”
According to the court motion, Goesling’s lawyers had objected to that specific line in court, and the court had agreed to remove the line.
“if the jury wanted to hold American Airlines liable as an assistant or participant to the sexual assault the jury found actually happened,” the court motions says, then the instructions the jury received “prevented them from doing so.”
Miller’s motion asks the court to set aside the verdict and order a new trial in the case.
This story was originally published May 18, 2022 at 1:09 PM.
