Chicago Team Secures Summary Judgment for Client in American Airlines Employees’ Lawsuit Alleging Defective Uniforms

Chicago, Ill. (April 11, 2025) - Chicago Partners Robert Good, Tim Young, Jordan LaClair, and Lynn Geerdes obtained a ruling from an Illinois federal judge granting summary judgment to their client, uniform manufacturer Twin Hill Acquisitions, in a lawsuit alleging pilots, flight attendants, and other “above the wing” employees of American Airlines suffered injuries due to harmful chemicals contained in Twin Hill-supplied uniforms. The judge also granted summary judgment to American Airlines.

Background & Procedural History

The plaintiffs are a group of current and former American Airlines pilots, flight attendants, and customer service agents.  

In their lawsuit, which was initially filed in August 2017, the plaintiffs allege that new uniforms American Airlines ordered from Twin Hill in 2015 contained harmful chemicals that triggered an array of symptoms in the airline’s employees, including rashes, hives, and throat swelling. The lawsuit claims that the airline refused to cancel the uniform rollout despite multiple reports of adverse reactions and “disquieting results” from lab tests. The plaintiffs asserted four causes of action against American Airlines, Twin Hill, and affiliates of the two companies: battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and strict and negligent products liability.

Though they filed their lawsuit as a class action, the plaintiffs did not seek class certification. Instead, they decided to proceed on a bellwether basis, with trials set to proceed on six bellwether plaintiffs in June and July of 2025.

Following extensive litigation, the defendants filed dispositive motions in September 2024, including motions for summary judgment and motions challenging the plaintiffs’ experts. The defendants asserted two core arguments: one, that the plaintiffs’ experts employed insufficiently reliable methodologies, rendering their opinions inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702; and two, even if the opinions of the plaintiffs’ experts were admissible, they wouldn’t plausibly establish that the plaintiffs specifically were exposed to harmful defects.

The Court’s Decision

In a 45-page memorandum opinion and order, U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants’ dispositive motions as to both the first and second bellwether flights, agreeing with the defendants’ arguments “across the board.”

In his ruling excluding the plaintiffs’ experts and granting summary judgment, Judge Tharp recognized that the opinions of both the plaintiffs’ experts suffered from multiple fatal flaws, including “no plausible theory of exposure, failure to identify a toxic chemical, lack of theoretical or empirical support, and unjustified reliance” on data from American Airlines employees’ complaints and the third-party lab testing conducted on the uniforms. Judge Tharp further found that, even assuming that the plaintiff experts’ opinions were admissible, they don’t establish a link between any alleged defects in the Twin Hill uniforms and the plaintiffs’ symptoms.

“Neither expert identified a chemical, dosage, environment, proximity, or duration of exposure that could have plausibly caused the plaintiffs’ symptoms,” the judge wrote. “Moreover, neither expert provided empirical support for the inference that chemicals present on the uniforms could have harmed the plaintiffs at any distance. Without that information, a jury would be forced to engage in uninformed speculation as to whether it was even biologically possible for the uniforms to trigger the plaintiffs’ symptoms.”

Although the summary judgment motions were specifically filed as to the six chosen bellwether plaintiffs, Judge Tharp indicated his ruling would likely apply to all named plaintiffs, by noting, "although this ruling grants summary judgment to the defendants only as to the claims of the bellwether plaintiffs, its rationale applies equally to the claims of all of the plaintiffs. In the absence of an agreed resolution of the entire case, the court anticipates that it will grant summary judgment as to the non-movant plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(1)."