Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—7th Cir.: Dismissal of United Airlines employees’ medley of claims related to COVID vax affirmed, (Jun 10, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The employees did not show that any of them had received a right-to-sue letter.

Affirming the district court’s dismissal of United Airlines employees’ state and federal claims for failure to state any viable claim for relief, the Seventh Circuit ruled the employees waived some of their claims and failed to exhaust administrative remedies on others. The employees failed to address the district court’s findings regarding forfeiture of their Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act claims and state-law claims of invasion of privacy and negligence. In addition, regarding their Title VII claims, neither their proposed amended complaint nor appellate briefing reflected that any specific plaintiff had obtained a right-to-sue letter (Anderson v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 24-1626 (7th Cir. Jun. 9, 2025)).

United Airlines employees, including pilots, flight attendants, ramp service workers, mechanics, technicians and customer service representatives, challenged the company’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate and masking requirement issued in 2021. The company created an online system for employees to request religious or medical exemptions from the vaccination requirement. The employees alleged that, despite having submitted or attempted to submit religious accommodation requests, United either fired them, placed them on unpaid leave, or otherwise harmed their careers by subjecting them to a hostile work environment.

Lower court. The employees filed federal and state claims against United and more than two dozen of its executives, officers, and board members. United moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and the district court granted the employees an extension to file a response. They did not respond but instead filed a proposed amended complaint. The district court construed the amended complaint as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

In denying the motion, the district court addressed each of the employees’ 12 claims. With respect to many of the claims, the court found dispositive the employees’ failure to respond to United’s substantive arguments. For other claims, it identified deficiencies in the proposed amended complaint that needed to be corrected to adequately state a claim.

Second complaint. Subsequently, the employees filed a second proposed amended complaint, which the district court again construed as a motion for leave to amend. Following another round of briefing, the court denied the motion as futile and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The employees filed this appeal. They argued the district court’s dismissal was in error because their proposed second amended complaint adequately stated a claim for violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, invasion of privacy under Illinois law, negligence under Illinois law, violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act, and multiple violations of Title VII.

Forfeited claims. Affirming the district court’s dismissal of the employees’ FDCA, invasion of privacy, and negligence claims, the court found the employees waived their ability to appeal these claims. The employees did not engage with the district court’s findings of forfeiture, despite forfeiture being an independent basis on which the district court rejected the employees’ claims. Because forfeiture went unaddressed on appeal, the employees’ waived these claims.

State-law claims. Likewise, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s ruling on the employees’ Illinois Whistleblower Act claim, finding they did not state a claim. The employees’ proposed amended complaint alleged that United retaliated against pilots who refused the COVID-19 vaccine and appeared to suggest that any pilot who received a vaccine would be participating in an illegal act under 14 C.F.R. § 61.53. That provision prohibits a person from “act[ing] as pilot in command” when, among other things, the person knows of “any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.”

The appeals court ruled the district court correctly concluded the employees did not state a claim pursuant to this theory. Neither their proposed amended complaint nor briefing on appeal showed how receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine would render the recipient unable to qualify for the medical certificate necessary for pilot operation.

Exhaustion of remedies. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the employees’ Title VII claims because they did not show that any of them had received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC.

Neither their proposed amended complaint nor appellate briefing reflected that any specific plaintiff obtained a right-to-sue letter. Moreover, they did not provide authority to support the proposition that a plaintiff may proceed with a Title VII action by offering a blanket assertion that they are “in the process of receiving” right-to-sue letters, or that “latent constitutional issues and stress incurred in litigation are valid grounds for overlooking the absence of a right-to-sue letter.”

Because the court affirmed on the issue of exhaustion, it said it did not need to reach the district court’s alternative grounds for dismissing the employees’ Title VII claims.

The case is No. 24-1626.

Judge: Pryor, D.

Attorneys: John Mark Pierce (John Pierce Law) for Thomas Anderson. Jordan Melissa Matthews (Jones Day) for United Airlines, Inc.

Companies: United Airlines, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination StateLawClaims Covid19 IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews