Explosive Lawsuit: United Airlines Boss Says He Was Terminated For Exposing Corruption And Safety Violations

A senior United Airlines leader who worked as the Chicago-based carrier’s managing director of operations for strategy and performance claims in an explosive new lawsuit that he lost his job for exposing suspected corruption and numerous safety violations within the airline.

Jeffrey Eisenberg joined United in 2017 and won several promotions to his director-level position in 2022 before he was separated from the airline – a decision that the airline claimed, at the time, was necessary as part of a reduction-in-force program.

A recently filed lawsuit in an Illinois district court, however, claims that this was little more than a cover-up and was actually an act of retaliation perpetrated by his boss, who wanted to put a stop to his exposing issues at the airline.

Eisenberg quickly made a name for himself when he took on his director role in the operations department and discovered that an IT project United was working on with a third-party vendor based in Austria was running well over budget and two years later than planned.

As Eisenberg researched more about this project, he discovered that another senior manager at United, who had been managing the program, had a personal interest in the third-party vendor, creating a conflict of interest.

United opened an investigation, and while the vendor eventually lost the contract, a committee ended up concluding that no wrongdoing had taken place.

Despite bizarre concerns about the length of Eisenberg’s emails, which even ended up with him being called into an HR meeting, he secured a performance-related pay rise in early 2024.

Several months later, Eisenberg reported two other potential issues with how United was running as an airline:

• First, he raised concerns about United’s ‘hasty’ plans to retire an old flight tracking and fuel planning software without a replacement system being properly in place.
• Then, he identified inadequacies and inaccuracies in United’s safety risk assessment process.
• Finally, he reported United’s alleged non-compliance with FAA rules that require a minimum number of flight attendants to be on active duty onboard a plane before boarding can commence.

Within days of praising Eisenberg for achieving more in six months than his predecessor had done in three years, his boss apparently suddenly soured of him and said he would be moved into another role.

United told Eisenberg that they would find a mutually agreed-upon new position for him, but the lawsuit claims this was never the airline’s intention.

The lawsuit alleges that his dismissal was, in fact, retaliation for whistleblowing about corruption and safety violations. An internal complaint was, allegedly, never completed, but after his termination, Eisenberg also submitted an official whistleblowing retaliation complaint with the Department of Labor.

After learning of this complaint, United then told Eisenberg that he would never be allowed to work for the airline or any of its subsidiaries ever again.

The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration then informed Eisenberg that it wouldn’t be investigating his complaint because it was ‘untimely.’

Eisenberg is now seeking relief through a district court and is demanding back pay, as well as reinstatement to his old job.

United Airlines was unwilling to provide a comment on the pending legal action. The case has been filed in the Northern District of Illinois under case number: 1:25-cv-10890