A former Delta Air Lines flight attendant sued the airline Monday for age discrimination, alleging that after more than four decades of service, she was wrongfully terminated without justification in August while on medical leave.
Marilyn Bowden’s Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit also alleges retaliation, failure to accommodate and engage in the interactive process, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and various state Labor Code violations. She seeks unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees.
A Delta representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the suit.
Bowden was hired in May 1981 as a flight attendant and later worked in an in-charge capacity, managing cabin operations and providing support to crew members and passengers. Her home base was Los Angeles International Airport.
For nearly 45 years, Bowden worked without any adverse employment actions, the suit states. On Jan. 7 of this year, she underwent a random drug and alcohol test after a flight, and management later raised an issue concerning the test. However, Bowden continued working, and even after suffering an on-duty injury, she was not immediately removed from her job, the suit states.
Bowden’s last day at work was Jan. 9, and she began treatment for injuries that included pain in her back, left shoulder and left knee, the suit states. Her doctors placed her on a 10-pound lifting restriction, and she was approved for disability through Nov. 30, but she always intended to return to work, according to the complaint.
However, on July 10, while Bowden was still on leave, management suspended her without pay and cut off her computer access and flight benefits, the suit states. Bowden continued receiving medical treatment, but management did not discuss return-to-work options, updated medical documentation or work limitations with her, the suit further states.
On Aug. 10, Bowden received a written notice of termination that gave her 72 hours to elect retirement instead, the suit states. The communication stated that any retirement would be retroactive to Aug. 1 and that if she declined the retirement option, the termination would be effective Aug. 10, the suit states.
Bowden chose not to resign or retire and objected to the termination, but management only told her she could appeal, according to the suit, which further alleges that she was not paid all wages owed to her upon termination.
“Circumstances support that plaintiff’s age was a substantial motivating reason for the adverse employment actions,” Bowden’s suit states.