Alexa Wawrzenski, a flight attendant at United Airlines, was investigated and ultimately fired for failing to remove photos of herself in uniform and wearing a bikini on her social media account that had a link to a subscription-based account. She sued United, alleging that she endured years of gender discrimination and harassment and that United retaliated against her for her complaints. She claimed that she experienced harassing, derogatory, and objectifying comments about her body and the way she looked in her uniform from coworkers and supervisors. She said she heard these comments several times a month.
Wawrzenski produced evidence of United’s disparate treatment of male employees. She submitted evidence of three male employees with social media accounts that included pictures of themselves in uniform and in “suggestive” poses, but who were not disciplined or who received only a performance warning. She also had evidence of United’s failure to investigate her complaints. She alleged that United had a discriminatory atmosphere because a co-worker told her she would experience “a lot of hate” because she was a “young, attractive female” and that she should “get used to it.”
The trial court granted United’s motion for summary judgment and Wawrzenski appealed. The California Court of Appeal held that the trial court was wrong to grant United’s motion as to her causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
The Court concluded that Wawrzenski had sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case of FEHA gender discrimination, because she showed: 1) membership in a protected class; 2) competent work performance; 3) an adverse employment action, namely termination; and 4) other circumstances suggesting discriminatory motive. United conceded the first three elements of a prima facie case but contested the fourth.
The Court of Appeal determined that Wawrzenski had sufficient evidence to suggest a discriminatory motive because United treated at least three male employees with similar social media activities more favorably. That evidence created a factual dispute as to whether Wawrzenski’s termination was motivated by a discriminatory animus. The Court also found sufficient evidence to suggest she was subjected to a hostile work environment.
The Court also determined that there was a triable issue regarding whether United retaliated against Wawrzenski for her complaints. The Court found that the trial court was wrong to exclude evidence of comments made before the limitations period for the purpose of establishing animus. In addition, the timing of Wawrzenski’s termination, just days after she complained about harassment, supported an inference of a retaliatory motive, even though United also discovered that she had failed to remove all photos of her uniform from her social media after she complained.
Alexa Wawrzenski v. United Airlines, Inc., 2024 Cal.App. LEXIS 717.