Female Delta Pilot Advances Sexual Harassment, Reprisal Claims

By Patrick Dorrian/ Bloomberg Law

Delta Air Lines Inc. must face a female pilot’s claims of workplace sexual harassment and that she was retaliated against for complaining about gender bias and harassment, including by being forced to undergo retreatment for alcohol abuse.

The ruling by the US District Court for the District of Minnesota rejected Delta’s contention that the retreatment requirement and other job actions cited by the pilot weren’t adverse for purposes of proving job retaliation, but instead were “beneficial opportunities” permitted by its collective bargaining agreement with her union. Binding case law “indicates otherwise,” the court said.

According to Andrea Ratfield, Delta’s adverse employment actions also included threatening her with termination and suspension, and manipulating her use of leave so it could demote her from captain to first officer. She started drinking to deal with trauma stemming from an incident in which she was raped while attending an aviation event in September 2017, which she reported to her supervisor, Ratfield says.

Ratfield says the sexual harassment she’s experienced in her Delta tenure includes being groped, her training manager asking her on a date, a supervisor calling her “princess,” and lewd hand gestures and comments. A supervisor also allegedly bragged to others that he had seen Ratfield’s breasts while she was breastfeeding, Judge Katherine Menendez said.

Those allegations sufficiently state a hostile work environment claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the judge said. The alleged acts of harassment may be “of the type brushed off by courts in different eras,” but they “comprise the sort of workplace behavior today that reasonable people” likely wouldn’t tolerate, Menendez said.

At least two of the incidents alleged by Ratfield occurred within the time period for suing, the court said.

Her retaliation claims are plausible in light of the alleged close timing—two weeks—between when she reported unfair and discriminatory treatment and when Delta refused to accept secondary test results she received that contradicted an allegedly false positive test that triggered the retreatment requirement, Menendez said.

Ratfield also alleges the retreatment facility was told that she rubbed people at Delta the wrong way and that supervisors further tried to sabotage her retreatment and effort to regain her license to fly by sharing her false positive test with the facility, the judge said.

The court dismissed Ratfield’s gender discrimination claims, including her allegations that Delta accepted secondary test results from male pilots under similar circumstances, but not from her.

Those claims require Ratfield to prove she was qualified to be a pilot and thus implicate terms of her union CBA, Menendez said. They therefore are preempted by the Railway Labor Act. RLA preemption didn’t apply to Ratfield’s retaliation claims because they don’t require proof that Ratfield was qualified for her job, the judge said.

Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP, Nichols Kaster PLLP, and Ellwanger Law LLLP represent Ratfield. Dorsey & Whitney LLP represents Delta.

Read the full article from Bloomberg Law here.

A Win for Delta Captain Andrea Ratfield!

By Sara Hammel

For all those following what’s by far the most-read story in The Landing’s short history, we have a victory to report.

Captain Ratfield will have her day in court. Delta Air Lines’ motion to dismiss was denied on two of three claims. As United States District Judge Katherine Menendez writes in part in her August 11, 2023 decision,

Delta’s motion is denied to the extent it seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim. Ms. Ratfield has plausibly pleaded a claim for retaliation under Title VII and the MHRA and sexual harassment under the MHRA.

Retired Delta Captain Karlene Petitt, who knows more about the airline’s legal strategies than almost anyone, covered that side of things on her blog yesterday:

Delta Air Lines utilizes the Railway Labor Act (RLA) to get away with illegal actions. The airline, under the management of CEO and Board of Directors, Ed Bastian, has a history of retaliation and sexual harassment. They also have a history of filing motions to remove these cases from the courtroom and pull them into the grievance process, of which they own both the arbitrator and the process. 

Congratulations to Capt. Ratfield. The cost of taking a stand is high, and can drain both your finances and your energy. But she’s standing firm, and I look forward to continuing to follow her court case.

Read more at The Landing here.

The Curious Case of Pilot Andrea Ratfield

By Sarah Hammel/The Landing

It’s the summer of 2020, and Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian is drafting an epic memo outlining the company’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Bastian promises clarity and transparency throughout the $27.5-billion company’s journey to a less white, less male leadership. He writes that he is “committed to correcting our course as we become a more just, equal and anti-racist company.”

Meanwhile, up north in Delta’s “second home” of Minneapolis, Captain Andrea Ratfield is doing some writing of her own.

It’s June 26, a Friday. At her wits’ end, Ratfield composes an email to high-ranking Delta executives, including Bastian.

A skilled pilot with an exemplary flying record, Ratfield launched her career at Delta as a flight attendant in 1999 before joining the airline’s three percent of women pilots in 2007.

In the summer of 2020, Ratfield is balancing a full life as a commercial airline pilot, activist, mother of two young boys with special needs, and trauma survivor. Making life even more challenging: In the midst of it all, she’s been routinely sexually harassed and assaulted at work. Despite reporting the incidents to her bosses, the male pilot perpetrators are never disciplined.

In her email, Ratfield reminds the executives what she’s been through—likely touching on a few examples in a laundry list that includes a male instructor pilot coming to her hotel room at 2 a.m. for “a drink” and another grabbing her breasts—and outlines again the retaliation she’s endured since reporting the abhorrent behavior.

She closes out the letter with a request that she not be forced to work any longer with the male pilots she says are retaliating against her. She names Captain Scott Monjeau, First Officer Warren Mowry and Captain Ray Baltera.

She hits send.

On July 14, Bastian goes on CNN to tout his airline’s diversity and equity plan.

Delta’s top man talks a good game. The 6’ 3” bespectacled CEO with slicked-back salt-and-pepper hair is duly somber as CNN’s presenter pushes him on the airline’s poor record of minorities in leadership positions.

Bastian admits he’s heard Black employees speak of being left out of the “broader” discussion, and says that “…minorities of all varieties, women, are all really important…[we need to] ensure that we’re doing our very best to promote opportunity and equality.”

He adds, “They’re family. They’re my family…I have a responsibility to do a better job.”

On August 11, 2020, Ed Bastian’s diversity memo blasts out to staff and media worldwide. The subject: Taking Action.

Read the full article from The Landing here.

Federal jury awards woman $25.1 million in sex discrimination case against Omni Hotels and Resorts

DALLAS — A former Omni Hotels employee gained a $25.1 million jury award for wage discrimination in Dallas federal court following an eight-year-long legal battle.

“It’s overwhelming. I feel I have a little bit of self-respect back. I feel that it’s healing and I can hold my head up a little high again,” Sarah Lindsley, 48, told WFAA following a federal district jury trial.

“I was just continually blocked along the way,” Lindsley said. “I was put down as a woman. I was disrespected as a woman, as being a single mother. I just put my head down, tried to work harder, tried to prove myself for years and years.”

Lindsley worked at Omni locations in Tucson, Arizona and Corpus Christi, Texas. Although she worked her way up from a server to one of just four female food & beverage directors among Omni’s fifty-plus properties, she claimed she was “paid less than men who had the same title and did the same work,” her suit said.

The lawsuit alleged that it was part of the “’boys club’ culture that permeated Omni’s Food & Beverage Division.”

“I had gone to HR countless times,” Lindsley recalled. “I had gone to my managers countless times, I tried to follow the chain of command the entire time I was there. Nothing was done, and I felt trapped as if I didn’t have a choice.”

The jury award is against Omni Hotels & Resorts and TRT Holdings, Inc.

In a statement, Omni Hotels and Resorts tells WFAA, “The proceedings remain ongoing and there is no judgment yet in this case. Accordingly, we are unable to comment on the specifics. However, we vigorously deny these claims and affirm that Omni Hotels & Resorts does not stand for discrimination in any way. We have every confidence that we will prevail as the judicial process plays out.”

“There were multiple times along the way where there were opportunities to resolve this case, opportunities for the parties to move on,” said Jay Ellwanger, Lindsley’s attorney at Ellwanger Henderson. “And time and time and time again, Omni just wasn’t interested and they didn’t want to talk, and they just wanted to try to prove a point through continuing to litigate with us.”

“And having a client that, like Ms. Lindsley, (who) was willing to persevere for eight years through all of those ups and downs,” Ellwanger said. “It’s really a unique situation and I think it speaks to how brave she is.”

Read more from WFAA here.

Being Treated “Less Well” vs. Adverse Employment Action

By Brendan Carman

In a recent decision, a New York Supreme Court appellate judge held that under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), a plaintiff only has to demonstrate they were treated “less well” than those outside their protected class to establish a claim of gender discrimination. The plaintiff does not have to show that they suffered an adverse employment action.  

An adverse employment action generally refers to an employer decision that impacts you negatively in a concrete way, i.e., a pay cut, a reduction in benefits, or termination. This is a higher burden than simply proving that you were treated “less well” than someone outside of your protected class.  

In Bond v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., the plaintiff raised claims of gender discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim because the plaintiff did not show that her employer performed an adverse employment action against her.

The First Department of the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision. The court noted that the plaintiff had provided a substantial amount of proof showing that after she denied her supervisor’s sexual advances, she “was unjustifiably criticized for her work product and attendance by her supervisors and stripped of her assignments.” Even if this did not amount to an “adverse employment action,” it was enough to show that she was treated “less well” on account of her gender.

The court also clarified that, unlike federal law, the NYCHRL does not differentiate between sexual harassment and other forms of gender discrimination. Rather, sexual harassment is merely a “species” of gender discrimination under the NYCHRL. Therefore, plaintiffs with sexual harassment claims only have to prove they were treated less well, too.

This decision highlights the broad protections against discrimination under the NYCHRL. If you believe you are being treated differently based on your gender, you should speak with a New York-registered employment law attorney.

Employment Discrimination-Know Your Rights

Discrimination in the workplace may be difficult to define but when it occurs, you should be aware and ready to take action. Under no circumstance is employment discrimination okay. It is important to know what qualifies as unfair and what factors you should consider before filing a lawsuit against an employer. Understanding employment discrimination in the workplace is vital when it comes to knowing what you must do if it ever happens to you.
So What Exactly is Employment Discrimination?
Employment discrimination occurs when a job seeker or an employee is treated unfavorably or unfairly because of his/her race, skin color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, genetic information etc. Workplace discrimination also extends beyond hiring and firing, for example, suggesting preferred candidates in a job ad, denying certain employees benefits or compensation, and discrimination while issuing promotions and lay-offs. There are many more different forms of employment discrimination and laws to protect employees. Listed below are some of the most common cases:
Racial Discrimination – Racial Discrimination takes place when a potential employee, employee or a group of employees are treated differently or unfairly based on their race or because of characteristics associated with race including facial features, hair, or color of their skin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination based on race as well as color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
Age Discrimination – Age Discrimination comes about when an employee is treated in an unfair manner because of their age, for example, being treated poorly because you are ‘too old’. The Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees who are 40 years old and older. In addition, under the NYHRL, Section 3-a, it states that it is unlawful for any employer to refuse employment or compensation to any person 18 years old and older because of their age.
Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Hostile Workplace Discrimination

  • Equal Pay-Gender discrimination includes sexual discrimination and/or sex-based discrimination. This occurs when any employer treats an employee in an unfair way or inequitable manner based merely on gender. This includes equal pay for men and women which is federally protected under the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
  • Sexual Orientation-Sexual Orientation discrimination also falls under this category when being homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or trans gendered impacts the way you are treated in the workplace or during the recruiting process. This kind of discrimination is protected under the Civil Rights Act and would be further be protected in a bill that is still awaiting passage by congress called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
  • Sex/Hostile Work Environment– Also protected under the Civil Rights Act, Sex/Hostile Work Environment is discrimination based in a sexual hostile environment. The “hostile environment” law also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.

National Origin & Religion Discrimination – Our country is widely mixed with people from different parts around the globe. National Origin discrimination occurs when an employee is ignored and/or treated poorly because of his or her accent, nationality, or ethnicity. Companies are required to fairly accommodate an employee’s religious and cultural beliefs as long as they don’t negatively interfere with the workplace environment. This act of discrimination is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Disability Discrimination- The Disability Discrimination Act focuses on the specific needs of the blind, partially blind, physically or mentally handicapped or people with disabilities. Disability is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) as a physical or mental impairment that considerably limits a major life activity. Discrimination includes denying employment opportunities to people who are disabled but qualify for the position or not accommodating the known physical/mental limitations of disabled employees
Pregnancy Discrimination-There are laws that protect pregnant women and people with disabilities under the Civil Rights Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions. Additional rights are available to women and others under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor.
If you feel you may be a victim of employment discrimination, let us help you protect your rights. Call the Law Offices of Valli Kane & Vagnini today for a free consultation.

Supervisor sues Omni hotels, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation when she reported it

A former supervisor with Omni Hotels & Resorts has filed suit against the Dallas-based company, alleging sexual harassment and saying the company broke federal laws governing equal pay.Continue reading

Valeant Unit Settles Sex Discrimination Claims For $7.2M

Law360, Los Angeles (July 12, 2016, 4:56 PM EDT) — Valeant-owned Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. will pay $7.2 million to settle a class action alleging gender discrimination and other claims brought by female sales representatives of the medical cosmetics company, according to a final settlement order signed by a D.C. federal judge Monday. Continue reading

Augusta Golf Club Opens Its Doors to Women

gender discrimination Quietly and confidently, IBM has stood up for social change and progress. The company is supportive of same sex unions, especially in famously homophobic areas of the world like North Korea. The powerful corporation was key in instituting racial diversity in its workforce long before it was politically or culturally popular, its Equal Opportunity Policy remaining virtually unchanged since 1953. International Business Machines has been a strong proponent in putting women in places of power. One of the lead designers on the original IBM PC—which, along with the automobile and airplane stands as one of the greatest consumer inventions of the 20th century—was female.
While the company’s reputation as a computing powerhouse has been overshadowed by Microsoft and then Apple in the past twenty years (IBM left the personal computing almost a decade ago), it remains a singular voice in computing, and in progressive social policy.
IBM’s voice got even louder back in April. IBM has been a longtime sponsor of golf’s Masters Tournament, held at the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. The Club has always admitted IBM executives as members—until IBM hired its first female CEO, Ginni Rometty, in January 2012. Many thought that the Club should admit Rometty as a member, finally divesting itself of its historically male-only policy. The Club refused, garnering a media firestorm and threats to IBM’s sponsorship of the Masters. The Augusta was famously silent in defending its policies—until today.
Women admitted to the Augusta National Golf Club
In an about-face, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and high-octane businesswoman Darla Moore, were admitted as the first two women to be granted membership to the August Club. Strangely enough, the Club has made no decision as of yet to admit Ginni Rometty (IBM continues to sponsor the Masters).
Golf and Social Progress
The Augusta Club’s longstanding sexist policies symbolize one of the ugly truths about golf: it is the United States’ least progressive sport. During Tiger Woods’ peak in the late 1990s, some clubs decided to admit minority members for the first time—a full thirty-five years after Alabama schools were integrated. As much as the PGA touts its progressive policies, golf remains glaringly behind the curve in terms of social progress.
Is It Legal for Golf Clubs to Discriminate?
The Augusta National Golf Club’s policy of not admitting women is, according to U.S. law, legal and legitimate. However, in many segments of our national culture, especially the workplace, discrimination is highly illegal. If you feel you have been discriminated against due to gender, race, sexual orientation, or religious belief, call the Law Offices of Valli, Kane and Vagnini to speak with a trained professional.

Transgender Cases Now Included in Gender Discrimination Interpretation of Title VII


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed the landscape of human rights across the country. Title VII is the most hotly debated portion of that law in that it forbids discrimination based on five key metrics: race, color, religion, sex and national origin. In spite of the law’s nearly fifty years as a part of United States Code, it still requires active, repeated interpretation to ensure proper enforcement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is responsible for making sure that act is enforced. Since Title VII’s inception, the EEOC has never ruled that transgender individuals are covered under the sexual discrimination cause of that Act—until April 2012.
Past EEOC Rulings Regarding Transgender Sexual Discrimination
Has discrimination on the basis of gender alignment always been a Title VII issue? Historically, it has not. In the past, when complaints were filed with the EEOC regarding discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals, the complaint was handled as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On three past occasions ranging from 1984 to 1986, the EEOC ruled that transgender discrimination did not constitute a Title VII claim. In April 2012, as the EEOC reviewed a complaint by Mia Macy against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the EEOC ruled differently. As a result, transgender complaints are now considered under the purview of Title VII.
What is Gender Discrimination?
Gender discrimination under Title VII occurs when employment opportunities are denied or the terms and conditions of one’s employment are altered due to an individual’s gender. The interpretation of the law, previous to 2012, has excluded transgender individuals. The new interpretation of the law is important to the transgender community and for Title VII law. As an interpretation of an existing law, it may fundamentally modify the legal system’s understanding of gender.
When is Gender Discrimination Appropriate Under the Law?
Are there situations where gender discrimination is deemed legally appropriate? Yes, there are. Gender preferences are permissible when an employer takes an affirmative action hiring policy to rectify past discrimination. In addition, there are narrow cases where gender discrimination is inherent to the working conditions, i.e. male or female modeling, etc.
A Time of Change in Transgender Rights
With this important EEOC ruling regarding transgender discrimination under Title VII, the American legal understanding of transgender rights is in flux. If you would like to find out more about the rights and actions surrounding an act of transgender discrimination, contact Valli, Kane & Vagnini for a free consultation.