Listen to the article
A former United Airlines pilot has filed a federal lawsuit against the carrier, alleging discrimination, retaliation, and defamation following his termination in 2023. The case highlights ongoing tensions between aviation employee rights and industry safety protocols.
John Paul Castillo III, a former C-130 combat pilot who served as a United first officer, filed the complaint on October 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He alleges that United violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by terminating his employment based on perceived disability and racial discrimination.
According to court documents, Castillo was hired in January 2023 and began flying commercial passengers that March. His employment issues began after a July 2023 arrest for suspected DUI, which was later dismissed. The lawsuit states that following this incident, United began pressuring Castillo to enter the Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS) Program, which monitors pilots diagnosed with alcoholism.
Castillo declined to enter the program, preferring to wait for an independent evaluation. That assessment ultimately found “no alcohol-use disorder” and characterized the incident as “a one-off, aberrant event.” Despite this finding, United terminated his employment in November 2023, citing a temporary lapse of his FAA medical certificate.
The lawsuit contends that Castillo’s treatment differed significantly from that of other pilots in similar situations. “United’s decision to fire Mr. Castillo while allowing other pilots — including those actually diagnosed with alcohol-use disorder — to remain employed during FAA review demonstrates disparate treatment,” the lawsuit states. Other pilots facing similar circumstances were reportedly placed on unpaid leave rather than terminated.
The complaint further alleges that the company’s actions reflected “racialized stereotypes about Hispanic men and alcohol use,” suggesting that United’s perception “was not a neutral medical judgment but reflected bias.” This allegation places the case within the broader context of workplace discrimination cases in the aviation industry, which has historically struggled with diversity issues.
Castillo’s lawsuit also claims United retaliated against him after he sought legal representation. The complaint cites Chief Pilot Ernie Aller as telling a union representative that Castillo was terminated for “lawyering up and not communicating.” The lawsuit characterizes this statement as “direct evidence” of retaliation, which would violate federal labor protections.
In addition to the discrimination and retaliation claims, Castillo accuses United of defamation. According to the filing, the airline reported to the FAA that his dismissal stemmed from “pilot-performance issues.” Castillo contends this entry was “false and defamatory” and remained in FAA records for approximately 18 months before being corrected in May 2025.
The lawsuit seeks several forms of relief, including reinstatement or front pay, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees.
This case emerges during a period of significant strain in the airline industry, which has faced pilot shortages and increased scrutiny over safety protocols following high-profile incidents. Major carriers like United have implemented stringent policies regarding pilot conduct and medical fitness, sometimes creating tension with employment rights.
The aviation industry’s approach to substance abuse issues is particularly rigorous due to safety concerns. The HIMS Program, which United allegedly pressured Castillo to enter, is a substance abuse treatment program specifically designed for aviation professionals. It has successfully rehabilitated thousands of pilots since its inception, allowing many to return to the cockpit after treatment.
United Airlines has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit. The case will likely draw attention from both aviation industry observers and employment law specialists as it progresses through the federal court system.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
7 Comments
This highlights the challenges of balancing workplace policies, employee privacy, and public safety in the aviation industry. I’m curious to learn more about the specific circumstances and rationale behind United’s decision to terminate this pilot.
Absolutely, more transparency around the airline’s protocols and decision-making would help shed light on whether this was a justified termination or an overreach. The public deserves to understand the reasoning.
The legal battle over this pilot’s termination will be an interesting one to follow. It touches on important issues of employee rights, workplace discrimination, and the aviation industry’s approach to substance use concerns.
Alcohol use by pilots is a serious concern, but the details here suggest this termination may have been overzealous. An independent assessment finding no alcohol issues calls for a closer look at United’s actions and decision-making process.
Agreed, the airline should not rush to judgment without clear evidence. A fair and thorough review is warranted to protect both public safety and individual rights.
This is a complex case with competing interests. The airline’s duty to ensure flight safety must be balanced with employee rights and fair treatment. I hope an impartial investigation can determine the facts and lead to a just resolution.
This case seems to raise valid questions about United’s handling of the situation and whether the termination was warranted. An independent review could help determine if the airline acted appropriately or unfairly in this instance.