A veteran airline employee alleges that she was subjected to age and disability discrimination, retaliation for protected activity, and interference with her right to legal counsel during her employment. The complaint was filed by Teresa Glitta in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 18, 2026, naming United Airlines, Inc. as the defendant.
According to the filing, Glitta is a Customer Care Agent who has worked at United Airlines since October 19, 1998. She claims that despite her long tenure and clean record, she faced repeated instances of being passed over for management roles based on subjective assessments related to her appearance—comments which she says reflect ageist stereotypes. The complaint states that Glitta suffers from Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC), a rare autoimmune disease known to United management due to her approved Family Medical Leave Act documentation.
The dispute escalated after Glitta reported alleged time-keeping irregularities and disparate treatment regarding public recognition of work anniversaries in July 2025. Following this protected activity, she claims that management began a campaign of retaliation. One incident detailed in the complaint occurred in August 2025 when Glitta was denied boarding on a partner airline flight in Zurich due to an undisclosed pet policy. Despite having prior confirmation for her small dog’s travel from an interline agent with Lufthansa Group, she was not allowed to board because of what was described as a ‘four-dog limit.’ Upon returning from Europe in September 2025, Supervisor Milo Mical conducted an adjudication meeting where he allegedly refused to allow Glitta to explain her situation or consider evidence about the unpublished policy.
The complaint describes several actions taken by Mical during this period: refusing Plaintiff’s explanations regarding the Zurich incident; characterizing her emotional distress as inappropriate; misrepresenting routine inquiries from Plaintiff’s counsel as threats; targeting Plaintiff for speaking Italian with family at work; and assigning disproportionately high workloads intended to set up performance failures. Mical is also accused of imposing a six-month travel ban—a disciplinary measure typically reserved for more serious infractions—without interviewing key witnesses such as Glitta’s daughter.
Union Steward Dena Pena reportedly expressed ‘shock’ at the severity of this punishment. According to the filing: ‘in her experience at United, such bans are typically reserved for employees involved in physical altercations on United aircrafts and strictly on United flights not verbal disagreements with partner airlines or the questioning of policies.’ The complaint alleges that these actions were meant not only as punishment but also as a means to strip Glitta of seniority-based flight benefits earned over nearly three decades.
Further incidents are described involving interference with legal representation. After filing charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in November 2025 and January 2026—which resulted in notices of right to sue—Glitta alleges that Senior Investigator Jay Smith contacted her directly about matters under litigation despite knowledge that she was represented by counsel. Smith allegedly refused requests for attorney participation or correspondence during internal investigations and warned that if Glitta did not participate without counsel present, findings would be made based solely on existing evidence.
Associate General Counsel Sheila Frederick later confirmed this approach in writing: ‘If your client does not wish to participate in the internal investigation, that is perfectly fine. The investigator will not reach out to her again.’ The complaint argues that these communications were attempts ‘to coerce Plaintiff into waiving her right to counsel’ and isolate her from legal advocacy during ongoing disputes.
In February 2026 another incident occurred when a younger coworker dismissed Glitta’s professional inquiry by calling her ‘lady.’ When Glitta referenced United’s “Core 4” motto addressing workplace conduct, Supervisor Mical allegedly used this event as pretext for further discipline against Glitta while ignoring similar behavior by younger employees.
The lawsuit asserts violations under both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), citing retaliatory actions including removal of benefits tied to seniority, increased workload assignments known to exacerbate medical conditions, humiliation before coworkers, refusal to acknowledge service anniversaries equitably among staff members based on age or protected activity status, and intentional bypassing of legal representation protections.
Glitta seeks several forms of relief from the court: declaratory judgment finding unlawful retaliation and discrimination; permanent injunction preventing further acts against her rights; restoration of all seniority-based flight benefits; expungement of disciplinary records related to disputed incidents; compensatory damages for emotional distress and financial loss; punitive damages alleging willful disregard for federally protected rights; attorneys’ fees; costs associated with bringing suit; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
The case is brought forward by attorney Celina R. Glitta (ARDC#6332728) representing Teresa Glitta under Case No. 1:26-cv-03071.
Source: 126cv03071_Teresa_Glitta_v_United_Airlines_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
