On May 31, 2023, 28-year United Airlines flight attendant Ruben Sanchez killed time in the jumpseat on a Los Angeles – Cleveland redeye chatting theology with another Catholic crewmember. Pride Month started the next day, and Sanchez remarks that the Church “will never believe men give birth or bless same‑sex marriage.”
You know, as Catholics, we’re not really supposed to be observing Pride. The church will never believe that men give birth, women have penises or that the church should bless same-sex marriages because marriage is a sacrament, and it’s not meant for two men or two women or three people or whatever.
A passenger (or someone claiming to be one) complained on Twitter, reported Sanchez said “I hate all black people,” and “I am proudly anti-trans.” Sanchez denies this. Sanchez has also been openly gay.
The airline didn’t substantiate the allegations, but trawled Sanchez’s twitter account and found a smaller percentage of his content showed “lack of dignity, respect and professionalism.” So on January 8, 2024, the ariline fired him for violating its social media policy. Initially his union, AFA-CWA, told him he’d done nothing wrong – but decided not to defend him.
I reached out to AFA and a spokesperson offered,
Since this is pending litigation we’re not going to comment on this specific case. But to be clear, our Union defends both first amendment rights and a harassment free workplace.
Sanchez went public with a GoFundMe to help him sue the airline, and the union sent a memo to all flight attendants reminding them to keep posts “mindful and respectful” citing what happened to Sanchez.
Funded by Twitter, he’s sued the airline and union for:
- Religious and age discrimination under California’s FEHA.
- Retaliatory discharge under California Labor Code §§ 1101/98.6.
- Breach of the union contract (for firing him without “just‑cause”).
- Breach of the union’s duty of fair representation.
He argues United punished religious speech while giving more leeway to employees who posted “progressive” hot‑takes.
AFA-CWA moved to toss the case under Rule 12(b)(6), the federal civil procedure standard that lets a defendant ask the court to dismiss a claim before discovery because the complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), a complaint must contain enough well‑pled facts to make the claim “plausible,” not merely “conceivable.” AFA-CWA argued Sanchez’s duty of fair representation claim didn’t clear the plausibility bar. However, the judge ruled the complaint plausibly alleges the union acted arbitrarily or with discriminatory animus, so discovery goes forward. (The airline’s separate motion is still pending.)
Here’s how the claims stand:
- Religious bias (again United) He argues his faith‑based views were a motivating factor in the discharge and that United could have accommodated them without “substantial increased cost.” He has a decent claim here, his pleadings against the union were adequate so might be against the airline. United will argue ‘brand protection’ and ‘harassment of others’ at summary judgment, but how consistent they are in the pursuit of these against others over non-religious speech will matter.
- Duty of fair representation (against AFA) He argues the union’s refusal to arbitrate was arbitrary and driven by hostility to his religion. Allegedly documentation suggests the union ditched him over cost rather than merit, and union leadership are vocally left wing. Discriminatory motive, though, is hard to prove in this specific case without a smoking gun that comes out in discovery.
- California public policy & contract The argument is United violating both the just cause standard and state speech protections for employees, but employers should win if they enforced a facially neutral policy consistently.
Corporations can discipline employees for speech that brands the airline as intolerant, but United’s investigation focused on 35 tweets out of 140,000 he interacted with. Cherry picking? He can probably demonstrate with discovery that other flight attendants kept their jobs after incendiary posts on other issues, and demonstrate bias against religious speech.
The union, for its part, can pick and choose which cases to pursue – how to allocate limited resources – but still needs to use objective criteria to treat its members fairly. Telling Sanchez “you’re innocent” and then walking away from his case can look capricious. If the discovery shows they dropped him because they disliked his politics, liability becomes plausible.
Recent Supreme Court precedent trends in his favor, and though these aren’t all on point they’re suggestive in ways that bolster hisposition.
- Groff v. DeJoy (2023) says the eployer must show that a religious accommodation causes “significant difficulty or expense,” not merely more than de minimis cost. That makes it harder for United to justify zero‑tolerance discipline by saying “any customer backlash is undue hardship.”
- Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (2022) A public employer (not the case here) violated Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses by disciplining a coach for on‑field prayer. This suggests discipline because outsiders might be offended by religious expression (in a public employer context), making the ‘brand protection’ rationale for doing so seem weaker.
Still, airlines usually win when they can tie discipline to customer backlash and policy language. United has perhaps a 50% shot of winning at summary judgment. If he makes it to trial his odds go up.
What comes out in depositions and discovery will drive likelihood of success, especially if the cae survives United’s summary judgment motion later this year. The airline will lean into that the investigation originated with a customer complaint, and that Sanchez violated a policy. Discovery could get ugly and embarrassing so we might also see a settlement.
lol. a gay catholic complaining about pride (or, indeed, anything) is pretty rich.
I hope this bones United good and hard.
And you can take that any which way you won’t – #nojudgement
Unfortunately there are policies in place for what you can do when representing the company. When in uniform and sitting in the jumpseat or on social media wearing your uniform, you are resresenting the company. I know when you are chatting away you do t think about people listening to you but when they are only a few feet away they can.
The policies are written out and employees are warned to be careful what they say around guest. This just shows they mean it as they should.
All a BS waste of time. Perhaps. Kirby could be more concerned with safe operations both on the ground and in the air.
Why is this being reported on this blog—let’s have some airline news for passengers–thatbis what the big should be about. We do not have blogs about human resource issues in other industries
this is all just a distraction to the contract proposal that isn’t being embraced
I am not going to comment on the issue at hand, but will comment on United. A lot of the posts that I have seen show United not treating their employees, or customers for that matter in a fair manner. It is safe to say that I would be leery of booking flights with them going forward.
@Tim Dunn — Bingo.
Speaking of distractions, wow, #45/47 really wants us all to ‘move on’ about the whole Epstein thing, eh? Huh…
The truth here is UAL does not want the employee. Go for a settlement and get as much cash from UAL as you can.
@Marc — Some of us are ‘gluttons for punishment,’ so, like, I make sure to book a few flights each year with them. It’s a few less whips and a little less leather than I’d prefer, but it still hits the spot ‘just right’ sometimes. Ahh.
He’s right. I don’t see the problem here. Biological men can not birth children, biological women do not have penises, and marriage is indeed an institution created by God for one man and one woman. There are exactly zero other formats provided for marriage in the Bible whatsoever, other than between male & female. It seems quite obvious why this would be. I do not believe for one moment that the guy said anything at all about hating black people. That sounds like a desperate ploy to get traction on this nothing-at-all of an incident/story..
People are free to believe whatever they so choose but when those beliefs are not grounded in reality and then seep over into the real world causing those who do live in reality to lose their jobs simply for speaking the most obvious of truth and fact, we have officially hit rock bottom. This just as well be 1984.
That this man is gay has absolutely no significance or meaning in this scenario.
@Henry: it may surprise you to know that not every one of us who is gay subscribes to ‘pride’, the alphabet mafia, and all the related politics around everything gay. In fact, many of us are as opposed to it all just as much as others are. There is nothing ‘rich’ here about anything. Surely you aren’t suggesting that a gay man’s legal complaints aren’t just as valid as a straight man’s would be were the man in this particular scenario straight.
@1990:
That’s quite the leap there: UA to Epstein. But since you went there, I would encourage anyone to see through yet another, of several currently ongoing psyops, to look beyond this psyop, look into and understand the judiciary as it currently is, and question why it might be that there is ‘nothing to see here’ regarding everything Epstein. No one truly believes this and it appears most aren’t quite understanding why the narrative has necessarily taken this turn.
Catman:
That’s a load of horseshit. The earliest written record of marriage predates the earliest days of the old testament by over 1000 years in the middle east. Marriage also existed in Europe and Asia long before religious influences entered those areas. You and other Christians may be ignorant, that doesn’t mean everyone is.
I flew for 40 years as a flight attendant and purser. We were always reminded to keep jumpseat conversations not about religion or politics.
It just isn’t worth the hassle.
@Henry I was a bit surprised that a gay catholic would take the strict catholic stance too to be honest. Although, maybe they were just discussing what the catholic view is and not that they agree with it. And I did find it rich they are in trouble for making what are probably considered anti-gay statements when they themselves are gay.
Frankly, I personally would figure if crew members are talking among themselves, even if I found their conversation quite objectionable I would prefer to give them their sense of privacy than ‘eavesdrop’ then report them to the airline.
@Catman Indeed. I would assume many (if not most) gay men or women etc. are just living their lives; no gay pride parades or events (… well given 10% of the population is gay, these parades would be QUITE large if most were participating…), no flags, no going on about LGBTQ+ issues. That said, I am surprised there’d be very many gay people that are actively opposed to all this as opposed to just being neutral or uninterested. But it takes all types.
United’s gonna get railed on this one!
Sanchez interacted with 140,000 tweets? That’s mind boggling. Beyond that, there’s no point in even talking about this case, because the grounds for his termination are buried in those 140,000 tweets more so than the remarks he made on that flight. We have no idea what he was saying on Twitter.
As far as marriage being a religious sacrament – that’s true, however the certificate of marriage issued by the state is not sanctioning a religious sacrament. Marriage from the state’s perspective is a legal status, and a marriage certificate is documentation thereof, much like a deed to your house or an LLC for your company. It has nothing to do with religion, unless we are implying that the state is sanctioning religious sacraments? That’s a whole other can of worms.
@Catman — First time? All we do is ‘leap’ around here. Can’t take any of this too seriously.
@Catman – Thank you. As a gay conservative, it’s incredibly frustrating to see how both the far left and far right insist on confining us to rigid ideological boxes. The reality is far more nuanced. I happen to know MANY gay men who strongly disagree with trans ideology, and many who question whether the ‘T’ should be included alongside the LGB at all. But expressing such views on social media, or in forums like Reddit? That’s a fast track to being fired, banned, or cancelled. It’s completely ridiculous.
If he made the simple and obvious mistake of spouting his views on SM along with blabbering on about being crew with photos in uniform that identify him as UA crew, then UA has every right to question his suitability as a crew member, especially if he expressed those views to anyone while at his place of work. Flight attendants are trusted to care for all passengers regardless of their beliefs. It’ll all depend on which court the case is tried in, more than right or wrong. It would be the same as a nurse or doctor identifying which hospital they work at, then spouting their views on certain groups of people they ultimately might have under their care. It would be a no no there, it’s a no no here too.
@Catman you sound like an unfortunate, self-loathing gay person who doesn’t have an ounce of understanding of the historical significance of gay pride or the origins of marriage.
First, I hope you get the help you need. Second, I hope someday you’ll take the time to educate yourself on the origins of the social constructs of marriage. As @Stan said, the earliest recorded evidence of marriage dates back to ancient Mesopotamia around 2350 BC.
@Mike Hunt — I raised this to you last time, but here’s another attempt: What do you think will happen when this conservative Supreme Court inevitably overturns Obergefell (the decision that legalized same-sex marriage)? Like, would you celebrate that or be disappointed in the regression? And what if they went further, as Project 2025, and the far-right seem to want, claim it’s all ‘pornographic,’ and outlaw the public existence of LGBTQ people?
Just sayin, maybe, let folks love who and live how they want to live… going after these ‘groups’ is merely scapegoating. And it isn’t ‘saving the children,’ when #45/47 was a prime ‘client’ with Epstein. Funny how it’s often the preachers who were doing the most pedophilia, not the drag queens. Hmm…
1. Number one never discuss politics and religion at work 2. And if you do never do within the earshot of anyone else.
Personally, I think this in general will be coming to a legal head. Can your employer dictate what you can think and say on your own time. In this case he was on company property and company worktime.
@1990 – While not unthinkable, most constitutional scholars do NOT, in fact, believe it is inevitable – or even likely – that the current Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell. Also, public support for same-sex marriage is strong, hovering around 70%, including a majority of Republicans. And if it was still to be overturned in spite of this? The fact is, government has no compelling interest in dictating the terms of private relationships between consenting adults. Marriage, at its core, is a contract rooted in individual liberty. When the state starts picking winners and losers in matters of personal union, it abandons neutrality and infringes on freedom. I want smaller government, and that means getting it out of the bedroom for all consenting adults: straight, gay or whatever.
Gay .. Catholic? I guess we can claim anything. Most Amerikkkans think that they are Christian.
@Mike Hunt — Thank you for responding and addressing. On this topic, I agree and hope you are correct.
I don’t blame United for firing this bigoted F/A.