PHILADELPHIA – An American Airlines flight attendant’s claims of gender discrimination did not hold up in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which granted the airline summary judgment on Aug. 27.
Melissa Chinery, who worked as an American Airlines flight attendant for the Philadelphia region, accused the company of gender discrimination, not preventing a sexually hostile work environment, and retaliating against her.
She claimed these alleged actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Despite her claims, the district court granted the airline’s motion for summary judgment.
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno
| Wikipedia
Chinery said her issues with the airline and her colleagues began when she ran for president of the flight attendants’ union in November 2014. Her basis for running was to challenge the union’s contract with American, according to court documents.
While she lost the race to incumbent Kim Kaswinkle (who backed the contract), Chinery alleges that the discrimination began and continued through January 2015. She called out four of her male flight attendants for allegedly harassing her on a flight attendant Facebook page called “Wingnuts” and on Twitter.
After human resources dismissed her case, she filed a questionnaire with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming American sexually discriminated against her when it refused to confront the alleged cyber bullying. She added that this is when American retaliated against her. She ultimately sued the airline, which has now requested summary judgment.
The district court said for Chinery to prove American retaliated against her, she’d have to show she performed protected activity, suffered an adverse consequence, and that there was a link between the activity and the consequence. While Chinery said American made her participate in a two-hour meeting, the court said this hardly proves to be an adverse reaction from American.
As for her sexually hostile work environment claims, Chinery would have had to prove she experienced discrimination because she’s a female, that the action against here was “severe” and that it caused huge detriment to her. “It is clearly that the alleged instances of harassment were not so objectively severe or pervasive to give rise to a cause of action,” the district court decided.
The court decided American should get summary judgement on each of Chinery’s claims.
Judge Eduard C. Robreno authored the opinion.