United Airlines 2012 Annual Report Download - page 28

Table of Contents
EEOC Claim Under the Americans with Disabilities Act
On June 5, 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit on behalf of five named individuals and other similarly
situated employees alleging that United’s reasonable accommodation policy for employees with medical restrictions does not comply with the requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC maintains that qualified disabled employees should be placed into available open positions for which they are
minimally qualified, even if there are better qualified candidates for these positions. Under United’s accommodation policy, employees who are medically
restricted and who cannot be accommodated in their current position are given the opportunity to apply and compete for available positions. If the medically
restricted employee is similarly qualified to others who are competing for an open position, under United’s policy, the medically restricted employee will be
given a preference for the position. If, however, there are candidates that have superior qualifications competing for an open position, then no preference will be
given. United successfully transferred the venue of the case to the United States Federal Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Following the district court’s
dismissal of the matter and the EEOC’s subsequent appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, on September 7, 2012, the Seventh Circuit overruled
previous precedent and held that there may be an obligation to place a minimally qualified disabled worker in a position over a more qualified non-disabled
worker. After the case was remanded to district court and the district court’s grant of United’s motion to stay this mandate during appeal, United filed a
Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States (the “Supreme Court”) on December 5, 2012. United anticipates that the EEOC will file its
response brief with the Supreme Court on March 11, 2013, after which the Supreme Court will determine whether to accept the case.
Litigation Associated with September 11, 2001 Terrorism
Families of 94 victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks filed lawsuits asserting a variety of claims against the airline industry. United and
American Airlines (the “aviation defendants”), as the two carriers whose flights were hijacked on September 11, 2001, are the central focus of the litigation,
but a variety of additional parties, including Continental, have been sued on a number of legal theories ranging from collective responsibility for airport
screening and security systems that allegedly failed to prevent the attacks to faulty design and construction of the World Trade Center towers. World Trade
Center Properties, Inc., as lessee, also filed claims against the aviation defendants and The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the “Port Authority”),
the owner of the World Trade Center, for property and business interruption damages. The Port Authority has also filed cross-claims against the aviation
defendants in both the wrongful death litigation and for property damage sustained in the attacks. The insurers of various tenants at the World Trade Center
filed subrogation claims for damages as well. By statute, these matters were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
the aviation defendants’ exposure was capped at the limit of the liability coverage maintained by each carrier at the time of the attacks. In September 2011,
United settled the last remaining wrongful death claim in connection with this matter. In 2010, insurers for the aviation defendants reached a settlement with all
of the subrogated insurers and most of the uninsured plaintiffs with property and business interruption claims, which was approved by the court and has
been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a claim for
environmental cleanup damages filed by a neighboring property owner, Cedar & Washington Associates, LLC. This dismissal order has been appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In January 2013, Continental was dismissed from the litigation in its entirety. In the aggregate, claims related to
the events of September 11, 2001 are estimated to be well in excess of $10 billion. The Company believes that it will have no financial exposure for claims
arising out of the events of September 11, 2001 in light of the provisions of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001 limiting
claimants’ recoveries to insurance proceeds, the resolution of the wrongful death and personal injury cases by settlement, the resolution of the majority of the
property damage claims and the withdrawal of all related proofs of claim from UAL Corporation’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.
27