Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Million Miler Sues United [Judgment for UA Jan 2014] Judgment Affirmed Dec 2014

Old Oct 1, 2013, 3:03 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: Ari
PLEASE READ FIRST: WIKIPOST and MODERATOR NOTE

MODERATOR NOTE:
Please note: Insensitive or attacking posts, discussion about other posters and their motives, and other off-topic posts/comments are not allowed, per FlyerTalk Rules.

--> If you have a question or comment about moderation, use the "Alert a Moderator" button left of every post, or send a PM. Do not post such comments/questions on-thread. Thank you.

N.B. Please do not alter the above message.


[Please post NLY status updates and relevant Q&A here.]

Plaintiff: George Lagen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Defendant: United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc.

Filed In The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Illinois Eastern Division

Case No. 1:12-cv-04056
Filed: 05/24/2012

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim

Proposed class: All persons, as of midnight, December 31, 2011, who were members of the Million Mile Program under United Airlines Mileage Plus frequent flyer program.

Filings/rulings can be found on www.pacer.gov (requires registration)

12 June 2012 - Amended Class Action Complaint filed
Spring 2013 - Court denies United's request to close case
Spring 2013 - Plaintiff files for suit to become a class action, United asks Judge before he decides if there could be limited discovery (which typically happens after case becomes class-action). Judge allows it.
August 2013 - Depositions/Limited Discovery completed and transcripts were handed over to the court.
22 October 2013 - Pursuant to an order of the Court, both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment:

Plaintiff contends that he is a United pre-merger Million Miler, that United promised Million Miler fliers certain lifetime benefits on its web site, including two regional upgrades every year and Premier Executive status, which provided certain delineated benefits (e.g., 100% mileage bonus). Plaintiff cites deposition testimony from United stating "lifetime" means: "as long as they were really able to fly as long as someone is coming on a plane and alive and capable of flying." Plaintiff concludes by stating that United has breached its contract with its pre-merger Million Miler fliers by reducing the lifetime benefits they were promised.

United contends in its motion that Million Miler is part of the MileagePlus program, that United reserved the right to make any changes it wishes to the MileagePlus program, and that the changes it made that plaintiff now complains of are therefore contractually permissible. United does not admit, and does not address, the "lifetime" benefit statements that it made on its website.

23 January 2014 - Judge denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants United's cross-motion for summary judgment. Judgment entered in favor of United.

The Judge begins his Opinion with a quote from Job: The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away and then holds that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that UA made him an offer to participate in a separate MM program.

The Court noted that: The sum total of his evidence is vague references to electronic and written correspondence from United, which, in both instances postdates his qualification as a Million Mile flyer and was not directed to him; and a 1997 Newsletter from United announcing the creation of the program he could not remember receiving. However the card he did receive from United, admitting him to MililionMile Flyer Program, shows that his new status is clearly a status within the Mileage Plus Frequent Flyer Program, as does the form letters United sent to applicants advising them of their admission to the MillionMile Flyer program. In fact, Plaintiff in his Complaint alleges that the MillionMile Flyer program was part of the Mileage Plus program. He has not produced any document that comes close to substantiating that the programs were separate and distinct."

Bottom line: The Court agreed with United's position that the Plaintiff had not proved the existence of a separate contract between itself and the Million Milers.

Full decision: http://media.wandr.me/MMerOpinion.pdf

20 February 2014

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision. The record on appeal is due by March 13, 2014.

Appeal docs available at:
  • http://media.wandr.me/UAL-MM-Appeal-filed-2-20-14.pdf
  • http://media.wandr.me/UAL-MM-letter-of-appeal.pdf
Appellant's (Lagen's) Brief due 4/2/2014

8 September 2014
Oral arguments were heard by a three judge panel. Links to the original MP3 of the Court's recording and also some transcription can be found around post 2350 and for several more following that.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/23496499-post2361.html

22 December 2014
Affirmed over a dissent.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D12-22/C:14-1375:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:1474449:S:0
Print Wikipost

Million Miler Sues United [Judgment for UA Jan 2014] Judgment Affirmed Dec 2014

Old Feb 2, 2013, 1:21 pm
  #1021  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SFO and OAK
Programs: FAF, Hyatt <>, SPG PLT
Posts: 2,240
Originally Posted by billxmeredith
I'm curious - if you all get 2 regionals, are you all going to start magically flying United again? Is that all it is going to take?
Good question. Most likely if those regionals were restored I would book at least 2 more trips on United than I would without. And when I was flying on those flights I could experience firsthand whether or not the United experience was improving as management has been saying it will. Its not all that much different than the free sales upgrades United's saleforce has and is still waving around at corporate customers to try and keep/get them back.

In fact the customer population that is represented by MMers consists of those who have shown a propensity to fly United so they are probably easier customers to win back.
Beerman92 is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 2:43 pm
  #1022  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP MM, HHonors Lifetime Diamond, Marriott Lifetime Ti, UA Silver
Posts: 5,030
Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
UA had many customers who were close to reaching the million-mile goal. Those customers similarly accelerated their travel solely based on the inducement advertised by UA. UA also owes those people money/reimbursement.
IANAL but IMO a customer would not need to "accelerate" their flying, they simply would have to show that they relied on the lifetime benefits assertions provided on UA's website. Even flyers who had only flown a small number of miles with UA should be considered. If a customer decided to fly UA based in part on the provision of future lifetime benefits for crossing MM thresholds they should reasonably expect those published lifetime benefits to be honored upon crossing the thresholds.
PHLGovFlyer is online now  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 3:27 pm
  #1023  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
Originally Posted by PHLGovFlyer

IANAL but IMO a customer would not need to "accelerate" their flying, they simply would have to show that they relied on the lifetime benefits assertions provided on UA's website. Even flyers who had only flown a small number of miles with UA should be considered. If a customer decided to fly UA based in part on the provision of future lifetime benefits for crossing MM thresholds they should reasonably expect those published lifetime benefits to be honored upon crossing the thresholds.
Hi HLGovFlyer:

Sorry, my post was too long and a bit confusing.

My post discussed those UA customers who chose to accelerated their flying to meet the million-mile mark as announced on united.com. Those people have an easier claim against UA if the million-mile benefits are not restored.

Further down in my post, in the example of the house benefit being withdrawn, I stated that these people (who did not reach million-mile status)through no fault of their own, should also be made whole even if they had not met the goal. I feel this way because these people did not make a voluntary choice of having their benefits retroactively breached and taken away. Therefore, UA owes some sort of reimbursement to these customers also.

Please read my post again and you will see that I agree with you.

A long post inherits certain disadvantages - they cause confusion.
-
dgcpaphd is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 4:32 pm
  #1024  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP MM, HHonors Lifetime Diamond, Marriott Lifetime Ti, UA Silver
Posts: 5,030
Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
Please read my post again and you will see that I agree with you.

A long post inherits certain disadvantages - they cause confusion.
-
No worries

And I understood what you meant from the outset. I was just emphasizing that the standard should not be based on the relative number of BiS miles a person has flown but whether they reasonably relied on UA's published program info in making their purchasing decisions and long term flying plans.
PHLGovFlyer is online now  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 4:44 pm
  #1025  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,757
I doubt tossing two RPUs per year per life to PMUA MMers is going to result in UA taking away the post merger companion benefit.
United could reasonably tell people that they can get the RPU/100% bonus, or the companion benefit. Not both.
entropy is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 5:18 pm
  #1026  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Akumal, Mexico
Programs: Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium (thanks to SPG), AA Life Gold, UA Life Gold
Posts: 840
Originally Posted by dsweet
Just my prediction. My own vote was with my feet. I flew less than 10K United BIS miles last year and now have that magical "Gold" as a result of my million miler status. My choice to walk was based primarily on the changes regarding upgrades and the sale thereof. Before anyone starts to defend United by pointing out that other airlines do the same, my flight was actually to a job that required no business travel.
I also voted this way, but also tried to make a statement to UA by showing them that I am still flying heavily. I ended up with over 90,000 flown miles added to my MP account, but exactly ONE segment, LAS-LAX at that, was flown on UA. I would hope that statistics like that would be noticed, but I am sure I am assuming too much. Welcome to Gold.
SNA1K is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 5:20 pm
  #1027  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,741
Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
Obviously, to control and take away something from someone without permission is less than honest, to put it mildly. UA is, effectively, the trustee of our future lifetime benefits that belong to million-milers. At a minimum, a fiduciary breach has occurred. The judge’s decision supports this theory.
When you say, "less than honest", I assume you really mean immoral, particularly here when there is ambiguity as to whether UA had the right to make changes to vested benefits or not.

The law does not enforce moral obligations--only legal ones.

My belief is that the pre-merger UA Million Milers were vested in the promised benefits and United is contractually prohibited from taking away those benefits (i.e., two regional upgrades a year). The court is being asked to enforce that purported breach of contract. We'll see what the court ultimately does (or what the settlement will be).

But the court must deal with the ambiguity between one term that says UA can change the terms of the program at will and another that says Million Miler get specified benefits.

By the way, there is no fiduciary relationship between United and its passengers so therefore no issue of breach of fiduciary duty.

To resolve that ambiguity, I expect the court will fund that those who had actually earned Million Miler before the changes took place are entitled to retain those benefits, but those who had not were not vested (i.e., had not actually earned the benefits yet) and United was free to change the terms of the contract as to them.

Any other decision, IMHO, would require the court to ignore portions of the contract, which it should not do if they can be reconciled.

By the way, there is no fiduciary relationship between United and its passengers so the issue of any breach of fiduciary duty does not exist here.

Last edited by Always Flyin; Feb 2, 2013 at 5:32 pm Reason: Fiduciary comment.
Always Flyin is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 6:13 pm
  #1028  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
When you say, "less than honest", I assume you really mean immoral, particularly here when there is ambiguity as to whether UA had the right to make changes to vested benefits or not.

The law does not enforce moral obligations--only legal ones.

My belief is that the pre-merger UA Million Milers were vested in the promised benefits and United is contractually prohibited from taking away those benefits (i.e., two regional upgrades a year). The court is being asked to enforce that purported breach of contract. We'll see what the court ultimately does (or what the settlement will be).

But the court must deal with the ambiguity between one term that says UA can change the terms of the program at will and another that says Million Miler get specified benefits.

By the way, there is no fiduciary relationship between United and its passengers so therefore no issue of breach of fiduciary duty.

To resolve that ambiguity, I expect the court will fund that those who had actually earned Million Miler before the changes took place are entitled to retain those benefits, but those who had not were not vested (i.e., had not actually earned the benefits yet) and United was free to change the terms of the contract as to them.

Any other decision, IMHO, would require the court to ignore portions of the contract, which it should not do if they can be reconciled.

By the way, there is no fiduciary relationship between United and its passengers so the issue of any breach of fiduciary duty does not exist here.
I am sorry there is no citation for any of that. Can you provide some citations for me?
colpuck is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 7:14 pm
  #1029  
Moderator: United Airlines
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.99MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,574
Originally Posted by billxmeredith
I'm curious - if you all get 2 regionals, are you all going to start magically flying United again? Is that all it is going to take?
The loss was more than 2 RPUs. Other losses were:
- For all, the threshold bonus of SWUs. This was the closest benefit that was like a standard annual MP benefits. It was still a benefit derived on multi-year commitment of the traveler.

- And PMUA 1MM lifetime status (PremExec) was downgraded in the pecking order (previously GS/1K, then 1P, Now GS/1K, then Plat and finally Gold) and the mileage earning rate was reduced from 100% to 50%. While this was done to the general Gold level in the annual MP program, it was also done retroactively to those that had achieved MM status. {IMO, this was the most significant downgrade}

- And the loss of Lifetime RCC/UC memberships for 2MM. UA did at least not revoke existing lifetime memberships, but removed it as a future reward. That in my mind puts it in the quasi zone like the threashold SWUs.

The gain for all was the companion benefit (assuming you have a companion that can make use of the benefit). Additionally due to the "adjustment process some PMUA members received a bonus adjustment of their lifetime mileage. And finally PMCO MM received higher status level than they had previously received.

So, it is more than just the RPUs. The RPUs may just be the most clear cut issue.

For the PMUA folks -- a fair resolution would be the choice of the 2 RPU or companion match and the partial restoration of PMUA 1MM status with the awarding of Lifetime Plat status.
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 7:55 pm
  #1030  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
...The law does not enforce moral obligations--only legal ones...

....I expect the court will fund that those who had actually earned Million Miler before the changes took place are entitled to retain those benefits, but those who had not were not vested (i.e., had not actually earned the benefits yet) and United was free to change the terms of the contract as to them...
^ Thanks for your reasoned legal analysis, pro bono at that.

Sometimes individuals, companies, or governments can make work an expedient decision based on "what we can get away with." While celebrating my FT friend ua1flyer's 10 million miles, they insulted many loyal-by-definition customers who have each flown at least 10% of Tom's total. A judge has now ruled it's at least "plausible" they could have breached a contract with us. Ironies abound and UA has created a PR disaster of its own making.

I thought from the outset that UA could have achieved a PR coup and some significant revenue by challenging those close to the threshold to achieve it within a specified period of time. I hope UA comes to understand it's in the company's best interests to make amends to those like me who reached one million miles, and also to those who were within a reasonable distance of the million-mile threshold.
Fredd is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 8:28 pm
  #1031  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SFO South Bay
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 3,052
Originally Posted by billxmeredith
I'm curious - if you all get 2 regionals, are you all going to start magically flying United again? Is that all it is going to take?
This was the only black and white issue that made me feel that UA can no longer be trusted. All the other items, such as whether Gold <> Prem Exec, are gray enough that it did not stick in my craw so much.

But really, now it is just too late. The damage to UA reputation is done. While I will not swear off UA (that would probably cause more damage to me than to UA in a relative sense), I will no longer treat UA as my preferred airline. Even with the RPU back, I would still feel that way.
blueman2 is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 9:35 pm
  #1032  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago USA
Programs: *A Junkie, SQ PPS, Skywards Gold, 2 Million Mile Flyer;*wood LT Plat, BA MM
Posts: 1,762
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
The loss was more than 2 RPUs. Other losses were:
- For all, the threshold bonus of SWUs. This was the closest benefit that was like a standard annual MP benefits. It was still a benefit derived on multi-year commitment of the traveler.

- And PMUA 1MM lifetime status (PremExec) was downgraded in the pecking order (previously GS/1K, then 1P, Now GS/1K, then Plat and finally Gold) and the mileage earning rate was reduced from 100% to 50%. While this was done to the general Gold level in the annual MP program, it was also done retroactively to those that had achieved MM status. {IMO, this was the most significant downgrade}

- And the loss of Lifetime RCC/UC memberships for 2MM. UA did at least not revoke existing lifetime memberships, but removed it as a future reward. That in my mind puts it in the quasi zone like the threashold SWUs.

The gain for all was the companion benefit (assuming you have a companion that can make use of the benefit). Additionally due to the "adjustment process some PMUA members received a bonus adjustment of their lifetime mileage. And finally PMCO MM received higher status level than they had previously received.

So, it is more than just the RPUs. The RPUs may just be the most clear cut issue.

For the PMUA folks -- a fair resolution would be the choice of the 2 RPU or companion match and the partial restoration of PMUA 1MM status with the awarding of Lifetime Plat status.
EXACTLY! I can't believe all this effort is for 2 RPUs. I believe anyone in the PMUAMP Program who was told year after year about the MM status, has been damaged. If it was up to me, every PMUA MP member should have the opportunity to decide if they want the PM UA MM or the NEW UA MM. It should also include the second-tier at 1MM/2MM.

Initially someone said they would be happy with being grandfathered into Platinum. Out of goodwill, UA should have done it BEFORE all this. It's too late now. I personally don't trust UA. Now what is legal what isn't etc. we shall see.

Again this is just my opinion.

UG
UrbaneGent is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 10:01 pm
  #1033  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
Originally Posted by UrbaneGent
EXACTLY! I can't believe all this effort is for 2 RPUs. I believe anyone in the PMUAMP Program who was told year after year about the MM status, has been damaged. If it was up to me, every PMUA MP member should have the opportunity to decide if they want the PM UA MM or the NEW UA MM. It should also include the second-tier at 1MM/2MM.

Initially someone said they would be happy with being grandfathered into Platinum. Out of goodwill, UA should have done it BEFORE all this. It's too late now. I personally don't trust UA. Now what is legal what isn't etc. we shall see.

Again this is just my opinion.

UG
And what about the continental million milers, do they just get screwed? I don't think you have thought this through.
colpuck is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 10:12 pm
  #1034  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: US
Programs: AA/UA/DL
Posts: 2,772
Originally Posted by colpuck
And what about the continental million milers, do they just get screwed? I don't think you have thought this through.
Do you mean Infinite Platinum flew 0.25M get screwed to become life time 1K?
pigx5 is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 10:17 pm
  #1035  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,637
Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
Hello Bear96:

I am puzzled by your post.

Are you saying that you disagree with the judge who made the decision to deny UA's Motion to Dismiss?

The judge took many factors into account INCLUDING that screen shot of the promise by UA for lifetime upgrades at the end of every year.

Please clarify - Thanks
-
You (and many others here) are seriously misunderstanding what this ruling was about. It was not a ruling on the substantive merits of the case. It was only saying that *IF* what the plaintiffs are alleging is true, there may have been a breach of contract. That is all. It did not remotely even touch on the issue of whether what the plaintiffs are alleging is true or not.
Bear96 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.