Rabé v. United Air Lines, Inc.
971 F. Supp. 2d 807
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Rabé, a French lesbian flight attendant, was terminated by United in 2008 following an investigation into BP-3 pass usage.
- BP-3 passes are non-revenue travel benefits with strict routing, alteration, and cancellation rules under United’s policies and the CBA with AFA.
- Rabé’s travel history included multiple address changes (France/Hong Kong) and use of BP-3 passes to travel between Hong Kong and France, including a 2006 routing she did not complete.
- An internal investigation in 2007-2008 concluded Rabé violated BP-3 rules by not completing routes, not cancelling unused legs, and using space-available travel for personal purposes.
- A Letter of Charge was issued in December 2007; a hearing was held in March 2008, and Rabé’s employment was terminated in April 2008; the decision was upheld by the System Board of Adjustment in 2010.
- Rabé pursued IHRA claims and federal claims; the court later held IHRA exhaustion required and dismissed those IHRA claims, and granted summary judgment for United on all federal discrimination claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IHRA exhaustion requirement | Rabé exhausted via Commission appeal after Department dismissal. | Rabé did not exhaust because no pre-suit Department dismissal occurred. | IHRA claims dismissed for lack of exhaustion; sexual orientation IHRA claim barred. |
| Retaliation under Title VII | Rabé was terminated in retaliation for complaints about discrimination. | No genuine retaliation evidence; argument not properly raised. | Summary judgment for United; retaliation claim waived/abandoned. |
| IHRA harassment claim | Rabé was harassed based on sexual orientation under IHRA. | No exhaustion; harassment merits are unsupported even if considered. | Summary judgment for United; IHRA harassment claim dismissed. |
| Discrimination under Title VII, ADEA, IHRA | Rabé was discriminated against on age, national origin, and sexual orientation; protected classes affected. | No direct/disparate evidence; no valid comparator showing similarly situated treated better; no prima facie case or pretext shown. | United entitled to judgment as a matter of law on discrimination claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atanus v. Perry, 520 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2008) (dual proof framework for discrimination claims under ADEA/IHRA)
- Smiley v. Columbia College Chi., 714 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 2013) (indirect proof framework for discrimination claims)
- Montgomery v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 626 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2010) (circumstantial evidence of discrimination; mosaic evidence approach)
- Srail v. Village of Lisle, 588 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2009) (similarly situated comparator standard for discrimination)
- Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Ctr., 612 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2010) (flexible comparator analysis in similarly situated inquiry)
- Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2007) (comparator evaluation in discrimination cases)
- Johnson v. Koppers, 726 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2013) (cat’s paw doctrine and biased subordinate liability)
- Majors v. GE Elec. Co., 714 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standards in employment discrimination cases)
- Righi v. SMC Corp., 632 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard; light of inferences in plaintiff's favor)
- Smith v. Lafayette Bank & Trust Co., 674 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment and discrimination proof standards)