## Facts

- United Airlines imposed maximum weight limits on flight attendants from 1980 to 1994 based on sex, height, and age.
- Women were required to weigh 14 to 25 pounds less than men of the same height and age.
- Noncompliance triggered discipline, including suspension without pay and termination.
- Flight attendants were the only United employees subject to maximum weight limits; during the relevant period the group was approximately 85% women.
- United ended the weight-limit policy in 1994.
- Female flight attendants filed class and individual actions alleging discrimination under Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, and California’s FEHA.
- The district court granted summary judgment to United on all claims; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether sex-differentiated maximum weight standards for flight attendants constituted unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII, including under disparate-impact and disparate-treatment theories.
2. Whether United’s weight limits were permissible sex-differentiated appearance/grooming rules or were employment conditions imposing unequal burdens on women.
3. Whether the policy or its enforcement violated the ADEA by discriminating against older flight attendants.
4. Whether the policy or its enforcement violated the ADA, including under a “regarded as disabled” theory.
5. Whether parallel sex-discrimination claims under California FEHA could proceed.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment in part and affirmed in part.
- The court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the Title VII sex-discrimination claims challenging the sex-differentiated weight limits, holding that triable issues existed.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for United on the ADEA claims.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for United on the ADA claims (classwide and most individual claims).
- The court permitted certain FEHA sex-discrimination claims to proceed to the extent they tracked the reinstated Title VII theories, while affirming dismissal of FEHA theories that mirrored the failed ADEA/ADA claims.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Sex-differentiated weight standards that materially affect discipline and continued employment may constitute actionable terms and conditions of employment under Title VII, not merely permissible grooming rules.
- A Title VII plaintiff can survive summary judgment on a disparate-impact theory by producing evidence sufficient to create a triable issue that an employment standard disproportionately burdens one sex; contested justifications generally are not resolved on a thin record at summary judgment.
- ADEA liability requires evidence supporting age-based discrimination; a record showing unequal sex-based standards does not, without more, establish age-based disparate treatment.
- ADA claims based on weight-related standards require evidence of a qualifying disability or that the employer treated the employee as having such an impairment; weight limits alone do not establish “regarded as” disability.
- FEHA sex-discrimination claims are commonly analyzed in parallel with Title VII sex-discrimination principles in federal court when based on the same alleged employment practice.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that United’s unequal, sex-based weight limits for flight attendants—enforced through serious discipline—could support Title VII and corresponding FEHA sex-discrimination claims and therefore could not be dismissed on summary judgment, but it left intact the dismissal of plaintiffs’ age-discrimination and most disability-discrimination theories for lack of sufficient supporting evidence under the ADEA and ADA.


Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2000)