United Airlines investigated and ultimately fired flight attendant Alexa Wawrzenski for failing to remove photos of herself in uniform and wearing a bikini on her social media account, which had a link to subscription-based content. Wawrzenski sued United, alleging that United employee subjected her to years of gender discrimination and harassment and that United retaliated against her for her complaints. She alleged that coworkers and supervisors made harassing, derogatory, and objectifying comments about her body and the way she looked in her uniform. She alleged that she heard these comments several times a month.
To show that United treated male employees differently, Wawrzenski submitted evidence of three male employees with social media accounts that included pictures of themselves in uniform and in “suggestive” poses. United only gave the male employees performance warnings or no discipline at all. She also produced evidence of United’s failure to investigate her complaints. She further 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 court of appeal held that the trial court had erred in dismissing Wawrzenski’s causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
The court of appeal 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 found there was 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 United terminated Wawrzenski based on discriminatory animus. The court of appeal also found sufficient evidence to suggest Wawrzenski was subjected to a hostile work environment.
The court of appeal determined that there was a triable issue regarding whether United retaliated against Wawrzenski for her complaints. The court of appeal also found that the trial court was wrong to exclude evidence of comments made before the limitations period for the purpose of establishing animus. The timing of Wawrzenski’s termination, just days after she complained about harassment, supported an inference of a retaliatory motive.
The court of appeal directed the trial court to vacate its order granting United’s motion for summary judgment on Wawrenski’s FEHA claims.
Alexa Wawrzenski v. United Airlines, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 663