Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Court reinstates case of airline worker fired for refusing to wear a mask

Reprints
United Airlines

A federal appeals court Tuesday reversed a lower court and reinstated a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by an airline employee who was fired for refusing to wear a face mask.

The plaintiff, who joined United Airlines Inc. in 1992 and worked as a ramp service employee, was terminated when he refused to wear a face mask after the airline issued a mandate requiring all employees to do so in 2020, although he was willing to wear a face shield with a drape, according to court papers.

A psychiatrist provided the plaintiff with a note that excused him from working with a face mask, stating he was disabled because of traumatic distress he experienced while he was in the military.

The plaintiff sued the airline in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The district court’s ruling in the airline’s favor was overturned by a three-judge appeals court panel.

A “reasonable jury could find that [the plaintiff] was able to perform the essential functions of his job without endangering the health or safety of others, if permitted to wear a face shield with a drape, instead of a face mask,” the ruling said.

“To be sure” guidance promulgated by federal, state and local public health authorities required people to wear masks while traveling or working in airports, it said.

But “the Guidance uniformly provided exemptions from its mask mandates, particularly for people with disabilities,” it said. 

“In sum, the guidance suggests both that face shields are less safe than masks, while also suggesting that they are a reasonably safe alternative for people like [the plaintiff] who have disabilities that prevent them from wearing a face mask.

“Weighing this competing evidence is for the fact finder at trial,” the ruling said, in remanding the case for further proceedings.

Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.