United Airlines Flight Attendant Sues after Airline Fires her Following Serious Injury

Safety at Work

Chicago, IL (WorkersCompensation.com) – A former United Airlines flight attendant is suing the airline for discrimination and retaliation after she was injured on the job.

Yihsing Tien started working for Chicago-based United in 2013. During her time with the airline, she was considered a high-performing crew member, court filings showed. However, Tien, 51, said she was seriously injured during a layover in 2018, and then fired in 2023. According to the airline, Tien was fired for taking too long to recover. Tien said in her filings the termination was retaliatory. United is now suing Tien for $22,000 to cover legal costs of her original suit.

According to her second amended complaint filed in October 2023, Tien said that during a work trip on Oct. 30, 2018, she was “severely injured when she fell on the premises of a hotel” the flight crew was staying at during a layover. Tien said she injured both of her knees, her left elbow, her left shoulder and her right wrist.

In January 2019, Tien said she received a letter from United’s supervisor of in-flight services stating that she could remain on approved medical leave through Jan. 25, 2023. However, around Jan. 25, 2022, she received a notice from United that her employment had been terminated.

Tien said during her time away from work, she was never contacted by the airline to discuss a return-to-work plan. In fact, she said, the first contact with United she had with during her time off was the January 2022 letter terminating her employment.

Tien fought to get her job back, arguing if she had known the correct end date of the leave of absence, she could have tried to return or find reasonable accommodations to work. United dismissed the appeal saying she should have been able to calculate the date the leave of absence was over on her own, regardless of what the letter from the company said.

Tien sued United for wrongful termination in a California district court, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. That complaint took three years to settle, and ultimately was decided in United’s favor on Feb. 2, 2026. Upon winning, United the filed a bill of costs due of Tien for nearly $22,000.

Tien’s attorney objected to the costs. In the amended filing, her legal team wrote “Now United Airlines, Inc. — a carrier that reported $59.1 billion in operating revenue in fiscal year 2025 — seeks $21,926.34 in costs from the woman who worked as its flight attendant.”

The legal team argued that the cost is financial blow for Tien, but close to nothing for the airline.

“To Ms. Tien, this cost amount represents more than twice her total income from all sources in the past year and compelling her to pay it would require liquidating the investment holdings that sustain her daily life. By comparison, the amount United seeks represents approximately 0.000037 percent of its annual revenue — the financial equivalent of rounding error to a corporation of this scale.”

Court records indicate Tien’s bill of costs was reduced to just over $12,500, but Tien’s attorney said it is still far too high.

“The economic disparity between a former flight attendant with no financial safety net and a carrier reporting $59.1 billion in annual revenue is not merely significant — it is extraordinary,” Tien's attorney wrote.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Jeffrey White said he would approve her application for a review explaining, “Plaintiff’s limited means, the issues raised in the litigation reflecting the public interest, and the potential of chilling important civil rights litigation.”

Her attorney remains hopeful.

In one of the most recent submissions to the court, Tien’s attorneys said she “did not lose because her claims were frivolous — five of nine causes of action survived United’s motion to dismiss… The ultimate result turned on narrow factual distinctions rather than legal insufficiency. She lost because United’s reliance on the terms of the collective bargaining agreement proved dispositive in a close and contested record.”

The court will review whether Tien should be required to pay any of United’s legal costs. Tien's brief is due June 22 and United's response is due July 22.

Share This Article: