A former flight attendant is seeking a new trial in her sexual-assault suit against American Airlines, claiming a Fort Worth jury was improperly given an instruction the judge had agreed to remove from the jury charge.
On May 11, after a two-week trial, the jury in Tarrant County District Judge Kimberly Fitzpatrick’s court exonerated American of responsibility for a British celebrity chef’s sexual assault of Kimberly Goesling in 2018.
The jury agreed that Mark Sargeant, a London chef working with American Airlines to develop in-flight menus, assaulted Goesling in her hotel room during a business trip to Germany. But the jury rejected Goesling’s contention that her employer encouraged Sargeant’s physical advances.
In a post-verdict motion for a new trial filed Wednesday, attorneys for Goesling said jurors reached their verdict after receiving an “improper, harmful” instruction from Fitzpatrick as part of her written charge to the jury. The instruction dealt with the alleged role of an American Airlines manager, Brett Hooyerink, in abetting Sargeant’s actions. The chef testified in a video deposition that Hooyerink drank with him on the night of the attack and told him Goesling was romantically interested in him.
According to court records, during a May 9 conference on the jury charge, one of Goesling’s lawyers objected to the inclusion of the following language, which the judge agreed to delete:
“You are instructed that, even if Brett Hooyerink supplied Mark Sargeant with the means of committing a sexual assault, Brett Hooyerink is not liable if he has no reason to suppose that a sexual assault will be committed.”
That language was not in the charge as it was read to the jury in open court, according to the motion for a new trial. But it was “somehow” in the written version that was provided to jurors when they deliberated.
“This isn’t a legal technicality. This is the court giving the jurors an instruction that does not follow the law,” said Goesling’s lead attorney, J. Robert Miller Jr. of Miller Bryant in Dallas.
“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.”
Goesling had sought nearly $26 million in damages against the airline.
Through her court coordinator, Fitzpatrick declined to comment on the motion for a new trial or offer an explanation for how the written charge differed from the version she read to the jurors before they retired to deliberate.
On Wednesday – a week after the jury returned its verdict and was dismissed and hours after Miller moved for a new trial – the judge hand-filed a version of the charge that, unlike the one the jurors signed on May 11, does not include the disputed language.
Saying that filing by the judge “injects further complications and uncertainties regarding the jury’s verdict” and calls into question her impartiality, Miller then moved for her recusal and a stay of all pending proceedings in the case.
The lead attorney for American Airlines, Shauna J. Wright, a partner in the Fort Worth firm of Kelly Hart & Hallman, referred a call seeking comment to American’s media relations office. A spokesperson there declined to comment on the new motion, instead reiterating the statement the airline issued after the May 11 verdict in its favor:
“The jury’s decision confirms that American does not tolerate inappropriate sexual conduct of any kind. 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.”