A COMMUTER FLT ATTENDANT WAS UTILIZED AS A CREW MEMBER AFTER FAILING A PERFORMANCE CHK. THE FLCS ASSIGNED TO FLT TIME WITH THIS FLT ATTENDANT AFTER HER FAILED CHK WERE NOT INFORMED OF HER STATUS.

Narrative

FLT ATTENDANT WAS GIVEN A LINE CHK BY MGMNT FLT ATTENDANT. FLT ATTENDANT FAILED CHK IN SEPTEMBER; BUT WAS NOT REMOVED FROM FLT. SHE CONTINUED TO WORK UNTIL OCTOBER. SHE WAS THEN TERMINATED FOR VIOLATION OF FAR 121.585 AND FAR 121.589. PIC HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF RESULT OF CHK-RIDE NOR DID ANY OTHER PIC; FOR THE NEXT 4 WKS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE COMMUTER AIRLINE FLT ATTENDANT WAS FIRED AFTER SHE COMPLAINED THAT SHE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A SUPVR'S RACIAL REMARKS. THE FLT ATTENDANT WAS ORIGINALLY FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY. SHE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THE COMPANY FOR 6 YRS; AND HAD WRITTEN HER COMPLAINT IN A LETTER TO THE CEO OF THE MAJOR AIRLINE 'PARENT COMPANY.' SHORTLY AFTER THE NEWS OF HER LETTER WAS RECEIVED BY HER AIRLINE'S MGMNT; SHE WAS GIVEN A CHK RIDE (THE SECOND PERFORMANCE REVIEW IN HER ENTIRE EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY). THE FARS THAT SHE ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED DURING THE CHK WERE REGARDING CARRY-ON BAGGAGE STOWAGE; AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE SUITABILITY OF EXIT SEAT OCCUPANTS. THE RPTR STATES THAT NO ONE ELSE IN THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE HAD A COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS PERSON; OR HER JOB PERFORMANCE. SHE HAD BEEN TOLD BY A SUPVR THAT 'WE DON'T LIKE YOUR KIND; HERE;' AND WAS VERY HURT BY THE MATTER; AND WANTED IT RESOLVED. AFTER TERMINATION; THE FLT ATTENDANT'S REQUEST FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WAS DENIED; BUT DURING A LEGAL APPEAL; A JUDGE DISCARDED THE AIRLINE'S CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE AIRLINE CONTINUED TO UTILIZE THE FLT ATTENDANT FOR 3 1/2 WKS AFTER SHE HAD FAILED HER CHK RIDE. THE CAPT STATES THAT THE FLT ATTENDANT WAS KEPT ON LINE BECAUSE THE COMPANY IS SHORT FLT ATTENDANTS (PLTS; TOO). MORALE IS POOR AND RPTR FEELS LOW MORALE IS A SAFETY ISSUE.