Sotis vs. IANTD

[Wookie]

What if Costco decided not to make you a wedding cake? Many courts say they have to.

 

[mderrick]

What if Costco decided not to make you a wedding cake? Many courts say they have to.

Depends on why they decided not to make me a wedding cake... if it was because I'm a heterosexual male then they are in trouble, if it's because I like to wear socks with sandals then they are not. The sotis v iantd suit doesnt appear to make a claim of discrimination on the basis of a federally protected class, just that they didn't follow their own process.

My question: is IANTD legally obligated to follow their own procedures if no law is being broken?

 

[tbone1004]

Depends on why they decided not to make me a wedding cake... if it was because I'm a heterosexual male then they are in trouble, if it's because I like to wear socks with sandals then they are not. The sotis v iantd suit doesnt appear to make a claim of discrimination on the basis of a federally protected class, just that they didn't follow their own process.

My question: is IANTD legally obligated to follow their own procedures if no law is being broken?

yes as part of their by-laws. All organizations are required to. They can change them basically at will, but they have to abide by whatever by-laws are in place at the time they make the change, and if an issue arises they have to play by the by-laws that were in place at the time the issue occurred.

i.e. IANTD can go in now and change the by-laws per whatever procedure they have in place to say that they can remove an instructor any time for any reason. No different than most businesses say that they can deny service to anyone for any reason. After that change, they can do whatever they want.
This suspension occurred in March or whenever it did and they have to play by the by-laws that are in place in March of 2017. Any changes made after that don't count for this circumstance but they can adjust them to prevent similar circumstances from occurring

 

[Wookie]

My question: is IANTD legally obligated to follow their own procedures if no law is being broken?

I can't respond to what IANTD does or does not have to do. I can tell you this, as a regulated dive operator. If Becky Bryson hadn't had a procedure that stated that she would directly supervise divers at all times they were in the water, She would still have a license and her insurance company would have a whole lot of their money. If you wrote a procedure, you have to follow it. Especially if it's regulatory, or you stand a great chance of explaining it to 12 citizens. AFAIK, IANTD is, as you state, a club. None of their members are a protected classmember for the purpose of this discussion. No one is going to cite IANTD for not following their own procedures. If they have to face 12 citizens, however, any half crappy lawyer would chew them up.

 

[Doc Ben]

I am learning how to play the SB game. Its unbelievable how many speculative comments one guy can make. And just because you have the same insurance company doesn't give you the right to make such idiotic speculation. Have any evidence for such speculation Capt Frank?

I'm guessing he's plutonium dust.

Maybe he's trying to force his agency sponsored insurance company to defend him?

Sotis' insurance company has thrown Sotis to the wind.

Sotis may be trying to add in some deep pockets here for the big lawsuit.

 

[Wookie]

None I'm going to make public, Mike.

 

[The Chairman]

I am learning how to play the SB game.

You miss the real point. There are a number of insiders in this thread and at least two insider insiders. There are more than a few "speculative" comments that are anything but. This is not a game, but a place where lots of information, some not immediately verifiable, gets disseminated. If you want to simply argue who has the 'right' to post what, then you're dismissing some incredibly valuable information. Me? I let the Wookie win.

 

[Doc Ben]

None I'm going to make public, Mike.

Then perhaps you should not have made the speculative comments in the first place, Frank. I see The Chairman likes your non-response. LOL.

 

[Doc Ben]

This is not a game, but a place where lots of information, some not immediately verifiable, gets disseminated. If you want to simply argue who has the 'right' to post what, then you're dismissing some incredibly valuable information.

. Really??? Speculation vs Incredibly Valuable Information...your confusing the two. In either case, you should back it up with something besides "insider" speculation.

 

[Diver0001]

I'm not an insider or an inside-insider or an angry gastroenterologist. I'm just a diver, yes, a technical diver with IANTD, TDI and a long time professional project manager who works in "political" (in the literal term) environments.

I know for sure that IANTD has to be taken to task for not following their own process. The courts won't be able to get around that. There have been far too many irregularities to defend the Sotis banning based on just "doing the right thing". IANTD has flipped the coin the other way too and decided to keep certain instructors OUT of the wind when it appealed to them.

Even IANTD instructor trainers I know have been crossing over to TDI in the last few years just to keep themselves out of the cross fire of this apparently random management. This case is such a case. What I think WILL happen in the legal proceeding is that IANTD will have its hand slapped and Sotis will win. IANTD, however, is not an organisation that will tolerate a man like that so they will do the whole process over and ban him again but this time using the proper (self described) process. He earned it, he deserves it and IANTD isn't going to let the courts badger them into backing an instructor who is (a) dangerous to his clients and (b) dangerous to the reputation of the agency.

He will be banned. The only question now is how and when.

Don't forget, IANTD made procedural mistakes but they didn't hurt anyone other than Peter Sotis' dive shop. Peter Sotis, however, ignored safe diving procedure to the point of nobody who knows anything about this case being able to follow his logic and het got someone killed as a result. That's more than just a procedural mistake.

R..