I wrote a post back in November, 2023, about the substantial verdict a California jury awarded to four American Airlines employees for rashes, illnesses and respiratory issues the employees claimed were caused by their American Airlines uniforms. Specifically, the employees claimed that the clothing manufacturer, Twin Hill, used formaldehyde in the uniforms to prevent wrinkles. And the employees claimed (and the jury agreed) that the formaldehyde was making them ill. At the time of that verdict in California, there was numerous similar cases pending against Twin Hill.

Last week, federal judge Thomas J. Tharp of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed similar claims against Twin Hill, finding that the experts for the plaintiffs failed to credibly establish that they had suffered harmful defects from wearing the uniform. Specifically Tharp ruled that the plaintiffs experts failed to prove that the specific uniforms the employees wore contained harmful materials.

Twin Hill rolled the uniforms in question out in 2016. After numerous complaints, Twin Hill conducted tests. Twin Hill lawyers argued that the testing failed to identify a single chemical or component, or combination thereof, that caused the symptoms of which employees were complaining. Experts for the plaintiffs did not identify a specific chemical responsible for the various symptoms alleged, but opined that such specific opinions were not required,

Judge Tharp disagreed and granted summary judgement for defendant Twin Hill. Tharp ruled that the methodologies used by the plaintiffs’ experts were not properly reliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Additionally, Tharp ruled that the experts’ opinions would leave jurors guessing about whether any of the identified chemicals would provoke the conditions alleged. Tharp didn’t mince words when he summarized the plaintiffs’ experts, noting that they showed no plausible theory of exposure; failed to identify a toxic chemical, and failed to provide empirical support.