UA indeed did pay up to cover any Dao claims against Chicago. The Chicago employees involved in the forcible Dao removal were acting as agents of UA when removing Dao, so it makes sense for UA to not keep itself exposed on that flank.
Originally Posted by
zombietooth
The fact that you believe UA is a dishonest and corrupt business has no bearing on the statements of employees represented by a union lawyer.
I'm not going to discuss here an article that declares something as unconstitutional when the courts don't see it that way.
Whether or not I believe what you believe about me, the fact is that not all false statements are equal under the law. Even when the statements are made by UA employees represented by a lawyer -- union lawyer or otherwise.