United Airlines Prevails on Partial Dismissal of Flight Attendant’s Discrimination Suit, But Must Face Amendment

U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes granted United Airlines’ motion to partially dismiss the first amended complaint filed by Timothy Panzl, a 63-year-old flight attendant who alleges he was terminated after disclosing an AIDS diagnosis.

Panzl, who has worked for United since October 1990, sued the airline and former executive Eric Mennel, alleging disability and age discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and negligent hiring under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Mennel was dismissed from the case in September 2025 following a joint stipulation.

The court granted United’s motion to dismiss Panzl’s claims for age discrimination, harassment, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, whistleblower retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The judge held that Panzl’s age discrimination claim failed because he did not allege facts showing a causal link between his termination and his age, noting that being over 40 does not automatically imply discriminatory motive.

The court also rejected the harassment claim, ruling that the alleged conduct—penalizing absences and applying attendance points—constituted routine personnel management decisions rather than the severe or pervasive social environment required for a harassment claim.

Panzl’s whistleblower retaliation claim under California Labor Code Section 1102.5 was dismissed because he failed to allege specific facts about what he said, to whom, or when, leaving the court unable to determine if United was aware of any protected disclosures.

The judge similarly dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, stating that personnel management decisions, even if discriminatory, do not rise to the level of "extreme and outrageous conduct" required for such a claim.

Despite the dismissals, Hayes denied United’s request to bar Panzl from amending his complaint, rejecting the airline’s argument that the defects were legal in nature and could not be cured.

Hayes held that United failed to show undue prejudice from allowing an amendment, particularly given the early stage of the litigation, and granted Panzl 21 days to file a second amended complaint.

If Panzl fails to file the amended complaint, United must file an answer to the first amended complaint within 40 days.