Malaspina v. Airlines
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-05411
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Malaspina v. American Airlines, Judge Corley denied dismissal, allowing claims involving termination and a “100% healed” policy to proceed.
John Malaspina’s employment-discrimination claims against American Airlines, Inc. may continue past the motion-to-dismiss stage; the court did not make a final determination on the merits of those claims.
What happened
John Malaspina sued American Airlines, Inc., alleging that its “100% healed” policy and termination of his employment violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California Labor Code section 1102.5.
Malaspina acknowledged that his disability-discrimination claims were filed late but argued that his traumatic brain injury, related impairments, and serious medical problems equitably excused the delay. American argued that his allegations did not adequately explain why he could not file on time and conflicted with actions he had taken before filing suit.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied American’s motion to dismiss. The court held that Malaspina had plausibly alleged facts supporting equitable tolling of the disability claims, including incapacity, medical problems, and efforts to pursue his claims with assistance. American’s answer is due within 21 days.
The detailed version
- Malaspina v. Airlines · No. 3:25-cv-05411
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 9, 2026
Background
John Malaspina sued American Airlines, Inc. for damages related to American’s “100% healed” policy and the termination of his employment. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California Labor Code section 1102.5.
The court had previously granted American’s motion to dismiss Malaspina’s Americans with Disabilities Act and California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims as time-barred, and had dismissed his Labor Code section 1102.5 claim for failure to state a claim, while allowing him to amend. American then moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
Arguments about equitable tolling
Malaspina conceded that his Americans with Disabilities Act and California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims were untimely but argued that equitable tolling applied. Equitable tolling can extend a filing deadline when specified circumstances justify treating a late claim as timely.
For the Americans with Disabilities Act claims, the court described the requirements as diligent pursuit of rights and extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing. For the California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims, the relevant considerations were timely notice, lack of prejudice to the defendant, and reasonable and good-faith conduct by the plaintiff.
Malaspina alleged that he was continuously incapacitated from June 2023 through the filing of the lawsuit because of a traumatic brain injury and related neurocognitive impairments. He alleged that he lacked a meaningful period of mental clarity sufficient to understand the need to sue, act on deadlines, complete paperwork, contact an attorney, or take the steps required to start a civil case. He also alleged that a caretaker had completed and explained an earlier administrative complaint process for him, that he lacked support after the caretaker was no longer involved, and that a friend eventually helped him find an attorney. He further described serious medical conditions and an emergency-department admission on September 12, 2023, the day after the Americans with Disabilities Act filing deadline.
American argued that Malaspina’s allegations were insufficient because his incapacity arose from an earlier injury, did not identify a later injury or aggravating circumstance before the deadline, lacked adequate detail about the statutory period, and conflicted with his prior complaints to American and the detail in his administrative complaint. American did not dispute that Malaspina satisfied the requirements of timely notice and lack of prejudice for his California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the motion to dismiss. It held that the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged that Malaspina’s mental impairments prevented timely filing and that he acted diligently to the extent he could understand and pursue his claims. The court also concluded that the allegations supported an inference of reasonable and good-faith conduct for purposes of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims.
The court stated that factual questions about the length and severity of Malaspina’s alleged incapacity were not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss. The order did not decide whether Malaspina will ultimately prove his claims or whether equitable tolling will ultimately apply. American’s answer is due within 21 days, and the initial case-management conference remains scheduled for April 22, 2026.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.