{"id":102743,"date":"2025-07-10T05:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-07-09T23:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aviationa2z.com\/?p=102743"},"modified":"2025-08-25T19:40:32","modified_gmt":"2025-08-25T14:10:32","slug":"united-attendant-files-lawsuit-after-fired-for-being-catholic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aviationa2z.com\/index.php\/2025\/07\/10\/united-attendant-files-lawsuit-after-fired-for-being-catholic\/","title":{"rendered":"United Attendant Files Lawsuit After Fired for Being Catholic, Conservative?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

CHICAGO\u2014<\/strong> United Airlines (UA)<\/a> and the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA face a federal lawsuit filed on June 30, 2025, by Ruben D. Sanchez Jr., a long-serving flight attendant who claims wrongful termination and discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The incident stems from Sanchez\u2019s alleged religiously inspired private conversation on United flight 1786 from Los Angeles (LAX) to Cleveland (CLE), followed by a social media investigation that he argues violated his rights. He reached out to Aviation A2Z<\/a><\/em> and shared the details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"United
Representative Photo: United Airlines<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

United Attendant Wrongfully Fired<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Sanchez, employed by United Airlines since 1996, alleges he was wrongfully terminated following a private theological conversation aboard a May 2023 red-eye flight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shortly after, a complaint surfaced on social media accusing him of discriminatory speech, prompting United to place him on paid leave and review his X (formerly Twitter) account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sanchez maintains that the complaint came from someone who was not on the flight. According to his amended legal filing, three co-workers interviewed by United refuted the complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He further asserts that his off-duty posts\u2014which included religious and political views\u2014were taken out of context and did not violate United\u2019s official social media policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"United
Photo: JFK Spotting<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Claims Against United and the Union<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the original and amended complaints filed in January and February 2025, Sanchez alleges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Wrongful discharge<\/strong> under California Labor Code \u00a7\u00a7 1101 and 98.6.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Religious and age discrimination<\/strong> under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Breach of contract<\/strong> by United.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Breach of duty of fair representation<\/strong> by the Union.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Disparate treatment<\/strong> compared to other employees with similar or worse violations.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Sanchez claims United used the investigation as a pretext to target him based on personal beliefs and age, especially after finding minimal policy violations in his social media activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    He alleges that other employees who made inflammatory or policy-violating posts were given chances to delete content or faced lesser discipline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    Photo: Duncan Kirk | https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/182528221@N07\/<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Social Media Policy and First Amendment Concerns<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Sanchez highlights that United\u2019s social media guidelines encourage employees to share experiences but warn against content that could harm the brand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    He contends that none of the cited posts explicitly referenced United and that only 0.02% of his posts were reviewed as problematic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    He also claims that his X profile labeled itself as a \u201cPersonal Account\u201d with no United affiliation, contradicting the company\u2019s rationale that his posts connected his identity to the airline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The posts under scrutiny included re-shares on obesity, criticism of transgender activism, and commentary on public figures. Sanchez insists these were expressions of personal opinion, not discriminatory attacks, and within his right to speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"CHAOS,
    Photo: AFA-CWA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Union\u2019s Alleged Inaction and Procedural Failures<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Sanchez further alleges the Union failed to adequately represent him during internal proceedings. While it initially defended him through two grievance stages, it later declined arbitration, citing financial concerns and referencing a separate pending case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    He accuses the Union of arbitrary behavior and bad faith, asserting it failed to evaluate his case on individual merits, violating its duty under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Union allegedly also refused to support him unless he paid for legal representation independently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Citing past incidents where flight attendants with religious beliefs received minimal support, Sanchez paints a broader picture of systemic neglect by the Union and unfair application of disciplinary measures by United.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    Photo: Charles | Flickr<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n