American Flight Attendant Uniforms, designed to represent the professionalism and image of the airline, unexpectedly became the source of serious health problems for numerous crew members at American Airlines. In a significant legal victory for cabin crew, a California jury has ruled in favor of four American Airlines flight attendants, granting them over $1 million in compensation. This decision comes after the flight attendants alleged that chemicals present in their newly issued uniforms were responsible for a range of debilitating health issues. The verdict casts a spotlight on the potential health risks associated with airline uniforms and could open the door for hundreds of similar claims.
The lawsuit originated from the introduction of new American Airlines uniforms in 2016. After a decade of wearing the previous design, many flight attendants initially welcomed the updated attire. However, the initial enthusiasm quickly turned to concern as complaints about adverse health reactions began to surface.
Tracey Silver-Charan, a Los Angeles-based flight attendant with 37 years of experience, recounted the severe symptoms she experienced. “I would wake up and my eyes would be completely swollen, like I had been in a boxing match,” she testified. “I was unable to breathe, often feeling like I was going to pass out while working. I would come home, and my husband would rush me to urgent care.” American Airlines did offer flight attendants the option to revert to the older uniforms or even choose alternative clothing from retail stores like Macy’s or JCPenney in response to the growing concerns.
In 2017, Silver-Charan and a group of colleagues initiated legal action. Her case was one of four selected for a bellwether trial in Alameda County Superior Court, near San Francisco. This trial served to gauge how a jury might perceive the broader case. The jury ultimately concluded that the uniforms, manufactured by Twin Hill Acquisition Co., were a “substantial factor in causing harm” to the flight attendants. Interestingly, while holding Twin Hill accountable for the harm, the jury did not find the company negligent in either the design of the uniforms or in failing to recall them once complaints began to accumulate.
Daniel Balaban, a lawyer representing the flight attendants, expressed satisfaction with the verdict. “It’s been a long road, but we’re very happy with the outcome,” he stated, highlighting the potential for further legal action if Twin Hill chooses not to settle the remaining cases. Twin Hill has the option to request a reduction in the jury award from the judge and may also appeal the verdict. Robert V. Good Jr., the lawyer representing Twin Hill, declined to comment on the matter.
American Airlines has since terminated its contract with Twin Hill and partnered with Land’s End for the production of future flight attendant uniforms. The core of the flight attendants’ lawsuit rested on the claim that their uniforms contained traces of harmful chemicals, including formaldehyde and toluene, substances known to be linked to various health problems. Formaldehyde resins, for instance, have been commonly used in textile manufacturing for years to impart wrinkle-resistance and durability to clothing.
A 2010 study conducted by congressional researchers examined formaldehyde levels in clothing and determined that while generally low, formaldehyde can trigger allergic reactions in some individuals, manifesting as rashes, blisters, and skin irritation. Washing clothes before wearing them can sometimes mitigate these effects, but it is not always a complete solution, according to the study.
To further support their claims, the flight attendants’ legal team presented testimony referencing a 2018 Harvard School of Public Health study. This research established a connection between new uniforms and health complaints among flight attendants at Alaska Airlines. Conversely, Twin Hill’s defense relied on expert witnesses who downplayed the potential health impacts of the uniforms. Silver-Charan noted that none of the defense experts ever consulted with her or requested to test her uniform for chemical presence.
In terms of financial compensation, the jury proposed $320,000 for lost income and pain and suffering for Tracey Silver-Charan and $750,000 in damages for Brenda Sabbatino, both chosen by their legal representatives. For two other flight attendants selected by the defense, who reported less severe symptoms, the jury awarded $10,000 and $5,000 in damages, respectively.
This verdict underscores the importance of textile safety and the potential health consequences of chemical exposure from clothing, particularly in professions like flight attendants who wear uniforms daily. The outcome of this case may have broader implications for uniform manufacturing standards within the airline industry and beyond.
