By Bob Paterson A United Airlines flight attendant suffered injuries during a work trip, received a letter indicating she could stay on medical leave until 2023, and then lost her job in January 2022. That one-year discrepancy became central to Yihsing “Angela” Tien’s employment lawsuit against the airline. Although a federal judge acknowledged that United’s original letter contained the wrong date, he ruled in February 2026 that Tien had not shown unlawful disability discrimination or retaliation. The dispute later attracted attention when United sought nearly $22,000 in litigation costs from its former employee.
What Happened to Yihsing Tien?
Tien worked as a United Airlines flight attendant from June 2013 until January 25, 2022. During a work trip on October 30, 2018, she injured her knees, left elbow, left shoulder and left wrist. She took medical leave after doctors concluded she could not perform the physical duties required of a flight attendant. United accepted her workers’ compensation claim.
In January 2019, United sent Tien a letter stating that, if she remained unable to return, she would be administratively separated on January 25, 2023. But the applicable collective bargaining agreement generally limited medical leave to three years, meaning the proper separation date was January 2022. The February 2026 court order confirmed that the 2023 date was an error and that United did not send a corrected version of the original letter.
United terminated Tien’s employment effective January 25, 2022. Tien said she had relied on the earlier letter and would have discussed returning with accommodations or transferring to another suitable role had she known her leave was expiring.
Why Did She Sue United Airlines?
Tien first filed suit in California state court in April 2023. United removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it proceeded as Tien v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-02622-JSW.
Her surviving claims included disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to participate in the good-faith accommodation process under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and retaliation for taking leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). She also pursued a related wrongful-termination claim. The case was an individual employment lawsuit, not a consumer or passenger class action.
What Did the Federal Court Decide?
On February 2, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted United’s motion for summary judgment. The court found insufficient evidence that the airline ended Tien’s employment because of her disability rather than under the leave limit in the collective bargaining agreement.
For the accommodation claims, the judge noted that United had granted the medical leave Tien requested, that she had not requested another accommodation before separation, and that the record showed she declined a discussion about transferring positions. The court also rejected her CFRA retaliation claim because her leave request was made in 2019, years before the termination.
The judge did not say the incorrect leave letter was acceptable. Instead, he distinguished the undisputed administrative mistake from proof of discrimination or a breach of the accommodation duties asserted in the lawsuit. Some theories requiring interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement were also affected by federal labor-law preemption.
Why Did United Seek $21,926 in Court Costs?
After winning in district court, United submitted a bill of taxable litigation costs totaling $21,926.34. These were claimed court-related expenses, not a judicial award of $21,926 in attorney fees. The court clerk reduced the amount to $12,516.47.
Tien challenged the reduced assessment, citing her limited finances and the possibility that a large cost award could discourage civil-rights litigation. On April 22, 2026, Judge White granted her request for review of the taxation of costs. That proceeding was separate from the judgment rejecting her discrimination claims. The original $21,926.34 demand should not be described as money she definitively owed.
United Airlines Yihsing Tien Lawsuit Status in 2026
The February 2, 2026 judgment resolved the claims in United’s favor at the district-court level. Tien filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 26, 2026. The publicly accessible records reviewed through October 15, 2026 do not establish a later appellate decision reversing or affirming that judgment.
No class settlement, compensation fund or damages award to Tien was verified. The cost-review proceeding and the appeal must be distinguished from the underlying ruling in United’s favor.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Was Yihsing Tien dismissed before the date in her leave letter?
Yes. The 2019 letter stated January 2023, but United terminated her in January 2022. The court found that the contract permitted a three-year leave and that the original letter misstated the correct date.
Q. Did the judge rule that United discriminated against Tien?
No. The district court ruled for United on the disability-discrimination, accommodation, retaliation and dependent wrongful-termination claims in February 2026.
Q. Does Tien have to pay United Airlines $21,926?
That was the amount United initially requested in taxable costs, not an established final obligation. The clerk reduced the request, and Tien sought judicial review. The April 2026 review order should not be confused with an award of attorney fees.
Q. Did Tien file an appeal after losing?
Yes. She filed a notice of appeal in February 2026. A final Ninth Circuit decision was not independently verified in the sources reviewed through October 15, 2026.