Court Reconsiders Cost Order Amid Concerns Over Financial Hardship and Public Interest
CHICAGO — United Airlines is seeking nearly $22,000 in legal costs from a former flight attendant following the dismissal of her disability discrimination lawsuit, setting up a closely watched dispute over whether such financial penalties could deter future civil rights claims.
The former employee, Yihsing Tien, who worked for the airline for nearly six years, is now challenging the cost order after a federal judge agreed to conduct a full review, citing her limited financial means and broader public interest concerns.
The case highlights the stark imbalance between a major airline reporting tens of billions in annual revenue and an unemployed individual facing a substantial financial burden after losing a legal challenge.
Injury During Layover Led to Termination Dispute
Tien joined United Airlines in 2013 and maintained what she described as a strong performance record with no disciplinary issues. Her employment took a turn in late 2018 when she suffered a serious fall at a crew layover hotel, resulting in multiple injuries, including damage to both knees, her left elbow, shoulder, and wrist.
The injuries required surgery and forced her onto extended medical leave. According to her complaint, United provided her with documentation indicating that her leave would extend through January 2023. However, that date was incorrect.
Under the airline’s collective bargaining agreement, flight attendants are limited to a maximum of three years of medical leave, meaning her actual return-to-work deadline was January 2022.
Tien alleges that United did not contact her during her leave to clarify her status or discuss options for returning to work. Instead, she says her first communication from the airline came in January 2022 — a termination notice.
Airline Defends Decision, Court Dismisses Lawsuit
Following her termination, Tien appealed internally, arguing that she could have attempted to return to work or sought accommodations had she been given accurate information about her leave expiration.
United rejected her appeal, stating she should have independently calculated the three-year leave period regardless of the incorrect date provided.
Tien subsequently filed a lawsuit in a California district court, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. However, the court dismissed her claims, ruling that she had failed to properly state a legal basis for the case.
Dispute Shifts to Legal Costs
After prevailing in court, United Airlines moved to recover its legal expenses, initially securing a cost award of $21,926 against Tien. She challenged the ruling, arguing that paying such an amount would cause severe financial hardship.
On her first appeal, the court clerk reduced the amount to $12,516. Still, Tien pursued a second appeal, maintaining that even the reduced sum was beyond her means.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White granted her request for a full review of the cost order. In doing so, the judge cited multiple factors, including Tien’s financial situation, the public interest implications of the case, and the potential chilling effect on future civil rights litigation.
Legal Team Argues Case Was Not Frivolous
Attorneys Emphasize Substance of Original Claims
In recent court filings, Tien’s legal team argued that her lawsuit was far from baseless. They noted that five of her nine claims survived an initial motion to dismiss, suggesting the case had substantive merit.
According to the filing, the outcome ultimately hinged on narrow factual interpretations and the application of the collective bargaining agreement, rather than a clear lack of legal standing.
The attorneys also underscored the financial disparity at the center of the dispute. They pointed out that the nearly $22,000 United is seeking represents approximately 0.000037% of the airline’s reported $59.1 billion in annual revenue — an amount characterized as negligible for a corporation of that size.
Broader Implications for Civil Rights Litigation
The court’s upcoming review could have implications beyond this individual case. Legal observers note that imposing significant cost burdens on unsuccessful plaintiffs may discourage individuals from pursuing legitimate claims, particularly against large corporate employers.
Judge White’s decision to revisit the cost order signals a willingness to weigh not only the legal outcome but also the broader consequences of enforcing such financial penalties.
For Tien, the outcome will determine whether she remains responsible for any portion of United’s legal costs. For the legal system, the case may help clarify how courts balance fairness, deterrence, and access to justice in civil rights disputes.
A final decision on the cost order is expected following the court’s full review.
