- A federal judge has dismissed most of a class action against United Airlines brought by two ex-flight attendants who accused the carrier of not paying crew members for boarding, deplaning, and ground time.
- Why the judge dismissed the claims on jurisdictional grounds without ruling on whether United’s pay practices are actually lawful.
- What Ava Lawrey and Lauren Tripp say they were required to do without pay, from pre-flight briefings to hours-long waits between flights.
- Why the case could still move forward, but only if the flight attendants’ union pursues it through a separate grievance and arbitration process.
- How United’s new boarding pay, introduced this year, compares to a flight attendant’s full hourly flying rate.
A New Jersey district court has granted United Airlines a motion to dismiss most counts in a proposed class action lawsuit against the carrier, which was brought by two ex-flight attendants who accused United of making crew members ‘work for free.’
The lawsuit was filed last September by Ava Lawrey, who worked for United Airlines for just two years, between July 2023 and July 2025, accusing the carrier of not paying her and tens of thousands of coworkers for boarding, deplaning, and other ground time spent on the ground, including for critical safety-related work.
Ava was based out of United’s Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) hub, where she would routinely turn up for work an hour and a half before a flight’s scheduled departure time, so that she could get through TSA security, sign in at the gate, and complete a pre-flight briefing with the crew.
She would then start boarding passengers, which is often described as one of the most stressful parts of a flight attendant’s workday, even the pressure of dealing with excess hand luggage issues and other dramas that occur during boarding.
Ava would only start getting paid, however, after the boarding door was shut and the plane was being pushed back from the gate. She would then stop getting paid after the plane arrived at the gate at its destination, even though she could still be expected to deal with safety issues.
The lawsuit accused United of breaching New Jersey’s wage and hour laws that require companies to pay their employees for all hours they are required to be at work.
Specifically, Ava said she regularly worked without pay, doing essential activities, such as:
- A mandatory requirement to arrive at the airport one hour before a flight.
- Completing pre-flight documentation and checking safety equipment.
- Boarding passengers and providing customer service to passengers.
- Assisting passengers during deplaning and clearing immigration and customs.
She also said she would regularly find herself waiting for hours on the ground between flights, waiting to board the next plane. During this time, she was in uniform and at work, but was never compensated for this time.
Lauren Tripp, a Texas-based United flight attendant who primarily works out of Newark airport, later joined Ava as a plaintiff in this case, making the same argument that she was required to work without pay in violation of state wage laws.
United Airlines moved to have the lawsuit dismissed, and the reason they cited has been successfully used many times before – the airline argued that the Railway Labor Act (which also governs many workers in the airline sector) deprives district courts of jurisdiction over cases involving an airline’s collective bargaining agreement.
Earlier this week, US District Judge Julien Xavier Neals issued his opinion on United’s motion, siding with the carrier, after deciding that the case brought by Ava would require the court to interpret the collective bargaining agreement between United and its flight attendants – something that the Railway Labor Act does not permit.
But that is a job for the System Board, not the Court.
Judge Julien Xavier Neals, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
One narrow part of the lawsuit, which is about the information that United presents in its wage slips, was not dismissed, although the parties have been ordered to engage in jurisdictional discovery to determine whether the Railway Labor Act also precludes the court’s jurisdiction on this matter.
If Ava and Lauren were to pursue the case, they would now have to push for the flight attendant union to seek arbitration through a grievance process.
Earlier this year, United introduced boarding pay for flight attendants for the first time as part of a new collective bargaining agreement. Boarding pay is not, however, the full hourly flying pay rate.
United pays boarding pay as a fixed percentage of your hourly flight rate, set by aircraft type, holding steady for the life of the contract:
- A319 / A320 / 737-700: 29.2% of hourly rate
- 737-800 / MAX 8 / MAX 9 / 900: 33.3% of hourly rate
- Widebody / 757 / A321XLR: 41.7% of hourly rate
Boarding pay is paid per flight sector, so if boarding takes longer than anticipated, flight attendants are not paid any extra.
A new-hire flight attendant can expect to be paid $10.82 in boarding pay for a narrowbody aircraft such as an Airbus A320.
Want to see more stories like this? Add PYOK as a preferred source on Google, and we'll show up more often in your searches and Google News.
Add PYOK as a Preferred Source
