Stroup v. United Airlines, 26 F.4th 1147

Background

Plaintiffs Jeanne Stroup (55) and Ruben Lee (61) were long‑service United flight attendants who were investigated after a coworker complained they watched a video on an iPad while on duty.
United sent an undercover supervisor (Bagwe) on one flight who observed multiple FAIM policy violations (video/ipod use, sitting on carrier boxes, sharing earbuds; Lee allegedly used an e‑cigarette and committed other service/uniform lapses).
United issued Letters of Charge listing the observed policy breaches but not expressly citing safety or dishonesty; at disciplinary hearings Whittaker (decisionmaker) said he found Plaintiffs not credible and terminated them (offering retirement instead, which the jury found was a constructive discharge).
Plaintiffs sued under the ADEA for age discrimination and willfulness; at trial they argued United’s proffered reasons were pretextual (pointing to targeted observation, commonality/minor nature of violations, deviation from progressive discipline, and inconsistent rationales).
The jury awarded liability and liquidated damages for willful ADEA violations; the district court denied United’s post‑trial JMOL and new‑trial motions (including challenge to admission of Plaintiffs’ emotional‑distress testimony).
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the discrimination and willfulness findings and (2) any error in admitting emotional‑distress testimony was non‑prejudicial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for ADEA discrimination (JMOL)	Plaintiffs: circumstantial evidence of pretext—targeted investigation, commonplace/minor violations, inconsistent rationales, witness credibility—permits inference of age motive	United: Plaintiffs had no direct evidence; admitted policy violations and dishonesty; business‑judgment rule shields employer absent evidence of impermissible motive	Affirmed — viewing evidence in plaintiffs’ favor, substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext supported the jury verdict on age discrimination
Sufficiency of evidence for willfulness (JMOL)	Plaintiffs: same evidence proving liability plus evidence decisionmakers were trained about age prohibitions supports inference of knowing or reckless disregard (willfulness)	United: must show knowledge/reckless disregard that the specific conduct violated the ADEA; pretext alone is insufficient	Affirmed — jury could infer willfulness from pretextual explanations combined with decisionmakers’ awareness of ADEA prohibitions; evidence (though not abundant) sufficed
Admission of emotional‑distress testimony (new trial under Rule 59)	Plaintiffs: testimony was relevant context for constructive discharge; testimony was minimal and jury was instructed not to award such damages	United: testimony was irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and should have been excluded (also argued discovery/judicial‑estoppel/supplementation failures)	Affirmed — even if erroneous, the testimony was minimal, not likely outcome‑determinative, and jury instructions limited its use; any error was harmless

Key Cases Cited

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (circumstantial evidence and disbelief of employer’s reasons can permit inference of intentional discrimination)
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) (Thurston willfulness definition applies to ad hoc disparate treatment; no extra proof hurdles beyond willfulness standard)
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (1985) (defined a willful ADEA violation as knowing or reckless disregard that conduct was unlawful)
EEOC v. Pape Lift, Inc., 115 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 1997) (plaintiffs may use the same evidence to prove liability and willfulness; circumstantial evidence of subterfuge supports willfulness)
Dodoo v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 235 F.3d 522 (10th Cir. 2000) (jury may infer willfulness from employer’s pretextual explanations)
Miller v. Eby Realty Grp. LLC, 396 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2005) (JMOL review standard; pretext analysis principles)
Bill Barrett Corp. v. YMC Royalty Co., LP, 918 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2019) (appellate de novo review of district court’s denial of JMOL)