## Facts

- Leroy Gordon, an African-American employee over age 40, worked for United Airlines and entered its flight-attendant training program, later serving as a probationary flight attendant based in Chicago.
- Before becoming a probationary flight attendant, Gordon had prior attendance-related incidents (including a “Notice of Concern” and a training-related tardiness report) that he said were represented to him as non-disciplinary and not to be used in later evaluations.
- During a 21-hour Los Angeles layover, Gordon experienced hotel room problems and returned to Chicago during the layover to shower and change clothes.
- Gordon did not fly the next scheduled leg (Los Angeles to Seattle) and asserted that a Chicago crew desk supervisor, Henry Velasco, gave him permission to miss the flight and be rescheduled; Velasco disputed that the absence was authorized.
- United treated the incident as an “unauthorized deviation” and terminated Gordon, citing both the deviation and his overall performance/dependability history, including earlier incidents.
- Gordon produced comparator evidence that another flight attendant—a white woman under 40—was the only other employee charged with similar “unauthorized deviation” conduct and received a warning rather than termination.
- The record reflected inconsistent explanations by United personnel about what qualified as an “unauthorized deviation,” why Gordon’s conduct fit the category, and who with decision-making authority deemed the absence unauthorized and decided on termination.

## Issues

1. Whether Gordon produced sufficient evidence under the McDonnell Douglas indirect method to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination (Title VII and § 1981) and age discrimination (ADEA).
2. Whether Gordon produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find United’s stated reasons for termination were pretext for unlawful discrimination, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for United and remanded.
- The court held Gordon met the minimal prima facie showing by evidence of protected status, termination, adequate qualifications/performance evidence, and more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee outside the protected classes.
- The court held that factual disputes existed on pretext because United’s explanations and application of the “unauthorized deviation” charge were unclear, inconsistent, and potentially inconsistent with its treatment of comparators and its earlier assurances about Gordon’s record.

## Legal Principles

- Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff may survive summary judgment by establishing a prima facie case; the employer must then articulate a legitimate reason; the plaintiff must then show the stated reason is pretextual.
- Pretext focuses on whether the employer honestly believed its stated reason; evidence that the explanation is unworthy of credence can support an inference of discrimination.
- Comparator evidence of materially similar misconduct receiving lesser discipline can support both the prima facie case and an inference of pretext.
- At summary judgment, courts must view the evidence in the nonmovant’s favor and must not resolve credibility disputes or weigh conflicting testimony; those tasks are for the jury.

## Conclusion

Because Gordon offered evidence of disparate discipline for comparable conduct and significant inconsistencies about the “unauthorized deviation” rationale and decision-making chain, a reasonable jury could find United’s stated reasons were pretext for race or age discrimination; summary judgment was therefore reversed and the case remanded.


Gordon v. United Airlines, Inc., 246 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2001)