Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc., 1:17-cv-05648

Background

American Airlines rolled out new Twin Hill uniforms for above‑the‑wing staff in Sept. 2016; soon after pilots and flight attendants reported skin rashes, respiratory problems, vertigo and other symptoms.
Pre‑ and post‑rollout testing (Intertek, APFA testing, and a NIOSH evaluation) detected various chemicals and some potential sensitizers/irritants but did not identify a clear, consistent chemical cause or concentrations that NIOSH concluded would likely "off‑gas" to cause proximity symptoms.
American publicly represented the uniforms as safe, set up a complaint call center, permitted alternatives later, and ultimately planned to end its Twin Hill contract; plaintiffs allege internal communications show management downplayed risks.
Plaintiffs brought a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) asserting battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and medical‑monitoring claims on behalf of numerous named plaintiffs and two putative classes (Uniform Class and Proximity Reactor Class).
The central procedural/legal issue is state workers’ compensation exclusivity: many states bar tort suits for workplace injuries unless employer acted with specific intent or was substantially/virtually certain the harm would occur. Plaintiffs refined their theory to focus on "proximity reactors" who reported reactions to American and allegedly continued to suffer symptoms.
The Court dismissed many plaintiffs under various states’ exclusivity standards but held that the SAC plausibly alleges substantial‑certainty knowledge and fraud‑style reliance as to a subset of proximity‑reactor plaintiffs domiciled in states applying a "substantial certainty" exception.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether workers’ compensation exclusivity bars intentional tort claims	Plaintiffs: employer intent/substantial‑certainty exception applies for identifiable proximity reactors who reported symptoms to American	American: exclusivity bars these tort claims in most states unless employer had specific or virtual certainty; plaintiffs plead only statistical risk	Court: exclusivity bars many claims; but for certain plaintiffs in "substantial certainty" states who repeatedly reported proximity reactions, pleadings plausibly allege employer knew harm was substantially certain, so those claims survive
Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged "substantial certainty" that continued proximity would injure named proximity reactors	Plaintiffs: repeated reports, contemporaneous spike in complaints across hubs, internal emails show management awareness and failure to mitigate — supports substantial certainty as to identifiable individuals	American: testing (Intertek, NIOSH) showed proximity reactions unlikely; plaintiffs’ self‑reports and generalized risk allegations insufficient	Court: distinguishing "sick‑building" precedents, held that for plaintiffs who repeatedly reported reactions and whom American allegedly prevented from mitigating, facts plausibly show substantial certainty as to that identifiable group
Whether fraud (misrepresentation of safety) is pleaded with particularity and whether reliance is plausible	Plaintiffs: American publicly assured uniforms were safe; some plaintiffs continued wearing and relied on those statements before later stopping and recognizing harm	American: many proximity reactors were exposed before the safety statements, so they could not have relied; Rule 9(b) demands strict particularity	Court: Fraud claim survives for certain individual plaintiffs who plausibly alleged they relied on American’s safety statements and satisfy Rule 9(b); Uniform Class’s fraud‑based class claim fails to overcome exclusivity
Whether intentional tort theories (battery, IIED, medical monitoring) are adequately pleaded	Plaintiffs: intentional torts viable for proximity reactors where American knowingly exposed them and curtailed mitigation options; medical monitoring sought as equitable relief	American: tort elements not met; comparisons to perfume/smoking cases show battery inappropriate; medical monitoring claims barred by exclusivity in relevant states	Court: Battery (and attendant intentional tort claims) plausibly alleged for the surviving proximity reactors; medical‑monitoring claims cannot proceed where state exclusivity or other legal standards bar them

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim under the Twombly standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (federal court in diversity applies forum state choice‑of‑law rules)
Walston v. Boeing Co., 181 Wash. 2d 391 (2014) (Washington requires employer actual knowledge that injury is certain to avoid exclusivity)
Lucenti v. Laviero, 327 Conn. 764 (2018) (substantial‑certainty standard requires that employer believed its conduct was substantially certain to cause harm to the employee)
Stebbins v. Doncasters, Inc., 263 Conn. 231 (2003) (sick‑building precedent examining employer knowledge and causation)
Allen v. IBM Corp., 308 F. Supp. 2d 638 (2004) (district court sick‑building case finding employers not substantially certain of harm despite some evidence)
Anderson v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 68 F. Supp. 2d 682 (1999) (district court sick‑building/IIED and fraud analysis)
Coffey v. Foamex L.P., 2 F.3d 157 (1993) (fraud claims still subject to workers’ compensation exclusivity analysis)
Gulden v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 890 F.2d 195 (9th Cir. 1989) (toxic exposure claims can support battery at pleading/trial when exposure and employer knowledge are present)