The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed a district court's decision granting summary judgment to United Airlines in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by a former flight attendant who alleged race and age discrimination.
Leslie Anthony, a Black woman in her late fifties, worked as a probationary flight attendant for United Airlines before being terminated for attendance-related disciplinary violations. The Fourth Circuit's unpublished per curiam opinion, decided Jan. 6, 2026, rejected Anthony's appeal of the lower court's dismissal of her retaliation claim.
According to the court record, Anthony began her employment with United Airlines on approximately July 4, 2022. Like all new United flight attendants, she was required to undergo a six-week training period followed by a probationary employment period. During her probationary period, Anthony accumulated three attendance-related disciplinary strikes, which led to her termination.
Following her dismissal, Anthony filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that United Airlines discriminated against her based on her race and age. She also claimed the airline retaliated against her for reporting the alleged discrimination. The district court, presided over by Senior District Judge Anthony John Trenga, granted summary judgment in favor of United Airlines on all claims.
On appeal, Anthony challenged only the district court's dismissal of her retaliation claim, abandoning her race and age discrimination arguments. The Fourth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Barbara Milano Keenan and Toby Heytens, along with District Judge Gina M. Groh of the Northern District of West Virginia sitting by designation, found that Anthony failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
"Because we conclude that Appellant fails to make out a prima facie claim of retaliation, we affirm," the court wrote in its brief opinion.
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under federal employment discrimination laws, a plaintiff must typically show that they engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. The Fourth Circuit's decision suggests that Anthony could not satisfy one or more of these elements.
The case highlights the challenges faced by probationary employees in employment discrimination lawsuits. Probationary periods are designed to allow employers to evaluate new hires and terminate those who do not meet performance or attendance standards. Courts often scrutinize discrimination claims involving probationary employees more closely, particularly when there are documented performance or attendance issues.
United Airlines was represented by attorneys John M. Remy and Felicia K. Marsh of Jackson Lewis P.C. in Reston, Virginia. Anthony was represented by Carla D. Aikens of Carla D. Aikens, P.L.C. in Detroit, Michigan.
The decision was issued as an unpublished opinion, which means it does not establish binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit. However, it reflects the court's application of established employment discrimination law to the specific facts of Anthony's case.
The Fourth Circuit's affirmance of the summary judgment suggests that the evidence presented at the district court level strongly favored United Airlines. Summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The fact that the district court granted summary judgment on all claims indicates that Anthony's evidence was insufficient to create triable issues regarding her discrimination and retaliation allegations.
This case adds to the body of Fourth Circuit employment discrimination jurisprudence, particularly regarding retaliation claims in the context of probationary employment. The decision may influence how similar cases are evaluated in the future, though its unpublished status limits its precedential value.
The ruling also underscores the importance of maintaining proper attendance records and following company policies, especially during probationary periods when job security is limited. For employees facing discrimination, the case demonstrates the evidentiary challenges in proving retaliation claims when legitimate, documented performance issues exist.
The Fourth Circuit's decision brings Anthony's federal court challenge to a close, though the ruling does not preclude potential state law claims or other legal avenues that may be available under different legal theories or jurisdictions.