A court ruling requiring a dismissed flight attendant to write a check for almost $22,000 to one of the biggest airlines in the world is quite unnerving. During the previous fiscal year, United Airlines’ operational revenue was around $59.1 billion. No internal spreadsheet would record the sum it is seeking from Yihsing Tien, the former crew member at the core of this case. Nevertheless, the airline’s attorneys pursued it.
In 2013, Tien—also known as Angela—joined United. She had a spotless disciplinary record, excellent performance assessments, and six years of employment before things took a turn for the worse. By all accounts, she was the type of worker that airlines claim to want. The pivotal moment occurred during a layover at a crew hotel in late 2018. She stumbled. difficult. Her left elbow, left shoulder, left wrist, and both knees were serious injuries. Following surgery, there was a medical leave of absence, followed by the arduous process of attempting to return.
| Case File | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yihsing “Angela” Tien |
| Defendant | United Airlines, Inc. |
| Case Number | 4:23-cv-02622-JSW |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
| Presiding Judge | Jeffrey S. White |
| Filing Date | April 20, 2023 (state); removed to federal court May 26, 2023 |
| Plaintiff’s Tenure | Approximately from 2013 to January 2022 (six years) |
| Original Injury | Late 2018 — fall at a crew layover hotel; injuries to both knees, left elbow, shoulder, wrist |
| Termination Date | January 25, 2022 |
| Cost Claim Pursued by United | $21,926 |
| Recent Court Action | District Court agreed to fully review the taxation of costs order |
| United’s FY2025 Operating Revenue | $59.1 billion |
| Counsel for Plaintiff (state filing) | Adam Reisner |
The case then becomes hazy, as these instances frequently do. Tien’s complaint states that she received a letter from United saying that her medical vacation was authorized through the end of January 2023. It appears that she trusted it, read it, and filed it. Her true deadline was January 2022, not 2023, because the letter had a date that was in conflict with the actual contract controlling flight attendants, which stated that the maximum permissible leave was three years. She didn’t see it. According to her documents, United terminated her on January 25, 2022, citing harassment because of her disability.
She filed a lawsuit. Judge Jeffrey S. White’s January 2024 ruling on United’s request to dismiss caused the case to bounce through the Northern District of California federal court, surviving in part and being trimmed in part. Eventually, the claim of full disability discrimination was rejected. United prevailed. The airline’s lawyers then moved for taxation of costs, which is a legal procedure that allows a winning party to collect certain expenses from the losing party, in the move that has garnered the most public attention.
Technically, United might have been within its rights. A typical aspect of civil action is cost recovery. However, it seems like someone in the legal department might have questioned if the optics were worth it as they watched things play out. A multibillion-dollar airline pursuing an unemployed former employee with surgical scars for around 0.000037 percent of its yearly income is the kind of tale that writes itself, and not in the company’s favor. It has already been picked up by aviation reporters. Commentary on employment law has also been spreading among labor lawyers.
After Tien’s side claimed the payment would cause actual financial hardship, the California court has now decided to thoroughly reconsider the taxation of costs order. That does not imply that she prevails. It indicates that a judge is open to reconsidering her case and the public interest. In certain cases, judges have discretion, which occasionally favors proportionality.
It’s difficult to ignore how frequently these tales have the same structure. When a person is injured at work, they must deal with a confusing leave procedure, miss a deadline that is hidden in fine print, and face the full legal weight of the organization. The details of Tien’s case might be unreadable by most travelers. However, the more general topic of what airlines owe their cabin employees remains unresolved.
