I read about what sounded like a crazy case at United Airlines, and just had to read more.
- A United Airlines flight attendant was injured, went on medical leave, and tried to return to work before the deadline given to her in a letter from the airline.
- But the airline told her the date in the letter was a mistake, it was too late, and she no longer had a job.
- She sued and lost. United obtained costs.
Wow, that seemed like a real jerk move for United to seek legal costs from an out of work employee they’d let go after a work-related injury! So I read the case and everything started making a little more sense.
- Angela Tien worked for United as a flight attendant from 2013 until January 25, 2022. On October 30, 2018 she fell at a layover hotel and injured her knees, left elbow, left shoulder, and left wrist. She went on medical leave and had surgery.
- United’s leave letter told her that she had until January 25, 2023 to return to work otherwise she’d lose her job. United made a mistake – under the union contract, maximum medical leave is three years. They should have said January 25, 2022.
- When she was fired, thinking she still had a year to return, she sued. She said she’d have tried to come bad with an accommodation or seek another position at the airline. They didn’t even contact her in interim. After she was fired, she alleges that she was told she should have known she didn’t have more time because she can “do math” and United had no obligation to correct the letter.
United won summary judgment, arguing that the Railway Labor Act and union contract preempted the flight attendant’s claims, because it turns on interpreting the collective bargaining agreement’s leave provisions.
The airline’s position was that she (1) was terminated for a nondiscriminatory reason (exhausting contractual leave), (2) she had not been medically cleared to return as a flight attendant (3) had not requested another position or accommodation other than leave, and she had been granted the leave she had requested.
It wasn’t a frivolous claim – the case wasn’t dismissed. She just didn’t win harassment or discrimination claims based on the evidence, and didn’t successfully argue that United’s letter trumps the union contract – which became a limit, not a benefit. That seems unfortunate, United should have owned their mistake in some way.
But the striking thing was going after costs against an out of work ex-employee, knowing that those costs probably aren’t going to be recoverable anyway (she can’t afford to pay).
- But that’s a basic entitlement under federal civil procedure. This isn’t attorney’s fees, it’s basic litigation expenses going to the prevailing party (deposition transcripts, court reporter fees, copying costs, etc.).
- United requested about $22,000. That was initially reduced to $12,516. And the judge reduced it to $0.
United did not get costs. It seems appalling to try. But the reasons they’d have spent time and money seeking it seem like:
- Appeal leverage. They can agree to walk away from costs if the flight attendant gives up on appeals.
- Scare other employees away from suing. You need to be really sure of your case to file if losing might bankrupt you.
At some level, though, I have to wonder what’s the point of AFA-CWA if the union didn’t protect this woman in a case like this – holding United to its written guidance for when she needed to return to work?
“United made a mistake…” Uh, Gary, then why are we attacking the union and the worker here? Ugh. I guess we’re back to View from the Right Wing… Gotta appeal, keep fighting.
that is a good point. in my own experience working with two unions (Pan Am & Northwest Orient), they’re only good at one thing: collecting dues every month.
As for UAL, it was my experience that as soon as they hire you to work there, they start looking for reasons to sack you. I remember a girl who was sacked because she took a cup of milk to her hotel at a layover because it was too late at night to get some at a shop.
I understand the thinking: if you steal something small, you will sooner or later steal something big.
But milk?
Maybe you can rouse Scott Kirby off the floor for his afternoon nap to talk to him about it, unless he’s busy grovelling at the feet of Donald Trump.
I think Gary is pretty clearly criticizing United. He’s clarifying *what* they won and the technical legal reasons they did. But he’s also pretty clearly indicating while they may have had the legal right to do everything they did, they’re really kinda a**holes for doing it. And I agree with that entirely.
@1990 Regarding the union, Gary understandably raises the question of “where were they?” We don’t know the story there, but it is legitimate. Did the union fight for her but lost, leaving her to go it alone? Did the union do much at all? We don’t know.
Personally, years ago the supervisor of our large team was abusive, hostile, and vindictive to to many subordinates. As a senior person with a very good record, I was probably least concerned with my job options there or elsewhere, so after attending a fake meeting which turned out to be a nasty, public, surprise attack on a couple of junior colleagues (who left the meeting in tears), I filed complaints. No surprise, but HR backed him 100% and went after me instead. Our union was completely useless – lazy, incompetent, very slow to do anything. So I hired a lawyer, filed a claim, and the problem was solved. Best money I ever spent (until the settlement required they cover my lawyer fees).
@Thing 1 — Yup. Would be nice to know the full-story, but we may not, so… speculation is ‘fun,’ I guess.
@Derek McGillicuddy — A rare, not-ALL-CAPs comment. Thank you for your attention to this matter.