Today’s Crybaby is a lawyer who broke the rules and then when confronted with her rule-breaking became abusive and then later doubled down with more abuse and a barrage of emails claiming amongst other things racism.
Air NZ eventually responded by banning her from Koru Club so she then took them to the High Court and lost with Air NZ awarded costs.
A Nelson lawyer has failed to lift her travelling ban with Air New Zealand after a dispute over entry into the Koru Lounge.
[…] Sharma said she and her family were travelling to India from Nelson in December 2018, when an Air New Zealand staff member asked for proof they were allowed to be in the Koru Lounge.
[…] Sharma said, on her understanding, their business class tickets entitled the family to use the Koru Club Lounge at Nelson Airport.
While Sharma and her husband were Koru members, none of their children were. The Koru Club policy allows for members to bring a maximum one guest.
[…] Air New Zealand staff who dealt with Sharma and her family said she’d acted in an “intimidatory and bullying manner“.
[…] “The report said that members of the applicant’s family called the lounge hostess stupid and racist, and mocked and loudly mimicked her voice when she greeted other passengers entering the lounge,” the judgment said.
[…] “I feel Mrs Sharma uses bullying tactics to gain her own way every time she travels, we are always courteous and helpful to her, but she pushes the boundaries of decency every time she travels, and I would like to put a stop to her countless demands with us,” the report said.
[…] The lawyer has been flying with Air New Zealand since 1980 and has been a member of the Koru Club since about 1996.
Sharma said she was dependent on travelling with Air New Zealand for both work-related travel and to maintain contact with family and for holidays.
In his judgment, Justice Davison said Air New Zealand’s approach and attitude throughout the proceedings towards Sharma had been constructive and it had sought to preserve its relationship.
“It was only after she continued, despite the warning letter, to engage in what the respondent considered was unacceptable treatment of its staff, as well as indicating in her correspondence that she did not intend to desist, that the respondent finally made the decision to impose the ban.”
Stuff
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.