Seventh Circuit Affirms Chicago Team’s Summary Judgment Win For Uniform Manufacturer Client In American Airlines Employees’ Lawsuit Alleging Defective Uniforms

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a Lewis Brisbois Chicago team’s summary judgment win for their uniform manufacturer client in American Airlines employees’ lawsuit alleging toxic uniforms.

Chicago Partners Tim Young, Lynn Geerdes, and Jordan LaClair recently obtained a ruling from the Seventh Circuit affirming the lower court order granting summary judgment to their client, uniform manufacturer Twin Hill Acquisitions, in a lawsuit alleging pilots, flight attendants, and other “above the wing” employees of American Airlines suffered injuries due to harmful chemicals contained in Twin Hill-supplied uniforms.

A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr.'s April 2025 decision granting summary judgment to Twin Hill Acquisition Co. and American Airlines, which the panel deemed "first rate" and "thorough." After confirming that, as a threshold matter, the district court did in fact have jurisdiction over the case, the Seventh Circuit panel rejected the plaintiffs' efforts to invoke the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur," which would have allowed them to present circumstantial evidence to create an inference of a defect in Twin Hill's products.

Background & Procedural History

The plaintiffs are a group of current and former American Airlines pilots, flight attendants, and customer service agents.

In their lawsuit, which was initially filed in August 2017, the plaintiffs allege that new uniforms American Airlines ordered from Twin Hill in 2015 contained harmful chemicals that triggered an array of symptoms in the airline’s employees, including rashes, hives, and throat swelling. The lawsuit claims that the airline refused to cancel the uniform rollout despite multiple reports of adverse reactions and “disquieting results” from lab tests. The plaintiffs asserted four causes of action against American Airlines, Twin Hill, and affiliates of the two companies: battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and strict and negligent products liability.

Though they filed their lawsuit as a class action, the plaintiffs did not seek class certification. Instead, they decided to proceed on a bellwether basis, with trials set to proceed on six bellwether plaintiffs in June and July of 2025.

Following extensive litigation, the defendants filed dispositive motions in September 2024, including motions for summary judgment and motions challenging the plaintiffs’ experts. The defendants asserted two core arguments: one, that the plaintiffs’ experts employed insufficiently reliable methodologies, rendering their opinions inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702; and two, even if the opinions of the plaintiffs’ experts were admissible, they wouldn’t plausibly establish that the plaintiffs specifically were exposed to harmful defects.

The District Court’s Decision

In a 45-page memorandum opinion and order, Judge Tharp of the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants’ dispositive motions as to both the first and second bellwether flights, agreeing with the defendants’ arguments “across the board.”

In his ruling excluding the plaintiffs’ experts and granting summary judgment, Judge Tharp recognized that the opinions of both the plaintiffs’ experts suffered from multiple fatal flaws, including “no plausible theory of exposure, failure to identify a toxic chemical, lack of theoretical or empirical support, and unjustified reliance” on data from American Airlines employees’ complaints and the third-party lab testing conducted on the uniforms. Judge Tharp further found that, even assuming that the plaintiff experts’ opinions were admissible, they don’t establish a link between any alleged defects in the Twin Hill uniforms and the plaintiffs’ symptoms.

The Seventh Circuit's Decision

On appeal, the plaintiffs asserted that under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, circumstantial evidence in the record supports an inference that Twin Hill is liable for their injuries. They wielded two variants of this argument: one, rooted in the Illinois Supreme Court's 1976 opinion in Tweedy v. Wright Ford Sales, which applies only to strict liability theories; and the traditional variant of res ipsa loquitur, which they asserted to try to prove their negligent manufacturing theory against Twin Hill.

In essence, Tweedy stands for the notion that, if a product "failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of nature and intended function,” and there is no evidence of “abnormal use or reasonable secondary causes,” a plaintiff can make out a “prima facie case that a product was defective.” However, Tweedy and many of its progeny cases concerned alleged brake failures during car crashes. In such cases, the Seventh Circuit panel said, the "connection between the alleged defect and the injury is usually obvious," but that rationale does not extend to the plaintiffs' claims against Twin Hill in the present case.

"Unlike brake failures, it does not follow that the uniforms could cause the wide range of symptoms reported by American’s employees," the panel found "The Tweedy doctrine does not satisfy plaintiffs’ burden to show that a defect caused their injuries—it goes to 'the condition of the product' when it left the 'manufacturer’s control,' not whether the injury is 'the result of the condition of the product.'"

The plaintiffs faced an even higher bar to prove their negligent manufacturing claims against Twin Hill under the traditional res ipsa loquitur argument, and they could not clear that bar, the appellate panel held. For the doctrine to apply in this instance, the plaintiffs were required to prove that they were injured: 1) in an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence and (2) by an agency or instrumentality within the defendant’s exclusive control. The Seventh Circuit panel found that the plaintiffs satisfied neither prong.

"The uniforms here were manufactured in many different factories and shipped across the world by multiple intermediaries. So, Twin Hill had long since relinquished control over them," the panel held. "By the time the uniforms were tested, moreover, many had been washed and worn, eroding Twin Hill’s control even further. No res ipsa loquitur inference could prove that the plaintiffs were injured as a result of negligent manufacturing by Twin Hill."

Read the Chicago Law Bulletin's article about the opinion here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.