Tien aka Angela Tien v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

Yihsing “Angela” Tien alleged that she worked for United Airlines as a flight attendant from approximately 2013 until January 2022. She alleged that she suffered serious injuries to her knees, left elbow, left shoulder, and left wrist in a fall at a hotel during a work trip in October 2018. She took medical leave and underwent surgery.

United sent Tien a letter stating that she had been placed on leave effective January 25, 2019, and that she would be administratively separated on January 25, 2023, if she remained medically unable to return to work under the applicable joint collective bargaining agreement. Tien alleged that United instead terminated her without notice on January 25, 2022, to harass her. She also alleged that United failed to correct the termination or rehire her after she complained.

Tien asserted claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act for disability harassment, disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to participate in the required interactive process, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. She also asserted claims under the California Family Rights Act, claims for retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a claim for injunctive relief.

Railway Labor Act Preemption

United argued that Tien’s claims were “minor” disputes preempted by the Railway Labor Act, meaning disputes that must be resolved through the procedures established for rights and duties created or defined by a collective bargaining agreement. The court rejected that argument and denied the motion to dismiss on that basis. It concluded that Tien was not seeking to enforce a right created solely by the collective bargaining agreement and that United had not shown that resolving her claims would require the court to interpret the agreement. The court noted that United could raise the argument again if later proceedings showed that interpreting the agreement was necessary.

Failure to State a Claim

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Applying that standard, the court ruled as follows:

- Harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress: The court granted United’s motion to dismiss these claims. Tien did not describe a specific incident of unfair discipline or excessive scrutiny because of her disabilities before she went on medical leave. The court also found that describing United’s conduct as “severe and pervasive” was a legal conclusion rather than a sufficient factual allegation. - Disability discrimination: The court denied the motion to dismiss this claim. Tien alleged an adverse employment action, described her disabling conditions and her performance before the injury, and alleged facts supporting a reasonable inference that United terminated her because she was on medical leave. The court stated that United’s arguments were better addressed on a motion for summary judgment. - Disability retaliation: The court dismissed this claim without leave to amend. It concluded that Tien alleged United granted her request for medical leave but did not allege facts showing that she engaged in protected activity after her termination. The court determined that further amendment would be futile. - Interactive process and reasonable accommodation: The court denied the motion to dismiss these claims. It found that Tien had alleged, at a minimum, that she was disabled, United knew about her disability, and United did not permit her to return to work. - California Family Rights Act: The court denied the motion to dismiss this claim. It concluded that Tien sufficiently alleged that United took adverse action because she exercised a right to medical leave. The court stated that United’s arguments about causation and equitable estoppel were better addressed on summary judgment. - Wrongful termination and common-law retaliation: The court denied the motion to dismiss both claims. It based the wrongful-termination ruling on its refusal to dismiss the disability-discrimination and California Family Rights Act claims. It denied dismissal of the retaliation claim because Tien alleged termination as the adverse action and the court had allowed the California Family Rights Act claim to proceed. - Injunctive relief: The court dismissed this claim without prejudice because injunctive relief is a remedy rather than a separate cause of action. The court stated that the dismissal did not prevent Tien from seeking an injunction as a remedy.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted in part and denied in part United’s motion to dismiss. The order required United to file an answer by February 13, 2024, and set deadlines for a joint case-management conference statement.