A high-profile dispute involving former United Airlines flight attendant Ruben Sanchez was quietly resolved, bringing an end to a controversy that had drawn national attention around free speech, religious expression, union representation, and the role of social media platforms.
Ruben Sanchez Dispute With United Airlines And AFA Resolved
Sanchez, a longtime United Airlines flight attendant with nearly three decades of service, was terminated in January 2024 following an internal investigation into his personal social media activity. The investigation originated from an anonymous complaint about a theological discussion Sanchez had with a colleague on a red-eye flight from Los Angeles (LAX) to Cleveland (CLE) on May 31, 2023.
Pride month began the next day. Speaking to a fellow Roman Catholic flight attendant, Sanchez, who is gay, said:
“You know, as Catholics, we’re not really supposed to be observing Pride. The church will never believe that men give birth, women have penises or that the church should bless same-sex marriages because marriage is a sacrament, and it’s not meant for two men or two women or three people or whatever.”
The anonymous complaint said that Sanchez also said, “I hate all black people” and “I am proudly anti-trans,” but he denied those charges.
United ultimately found that the in-flight interaction itself did not violate company policy, but later cited Sanchez’s online activity as grounds for termination.
So what were those posts? They included:
- Addressing discrimination, specifically concerning passengers of size
- Support of removing the “transgender triangle” from the Pride flag
Here are some examples:
Per United, the photo in the tweet below created a “nexus” between his employment with United and some of his opinions online deemed inflammatory.
Sanchez has said the social media posts at issue reflected his Catholic beliefs, particularly on marriage and sexuality. He alleged that United reviewed an enormous volume of his personal activity, combing through years of posts, likes, and interactions that were unrelated to his job performance. After his termination, Sanchez sought representation from the Association of Flight Attendants, but the union ultimately withdrew its support during the grievance and arbitration process.
In early 2025, Sanchez filed suit against both United Airlines and the AFA, asserting claims that included wrongful termination, religious discrimination, age discrimination, breach of contract, and failure of fair representation by the union. A federal judge later denied the union’s motion to dismiss parts of the case, allowing key claims to proceed and increasing pressure on all parties as discovery loomed.
How The Dispute Came To An End
This week, the matter was resolved amicably with the involvement of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter that is owned by Elon Musk. In a public statement, X’s Global Government Affairs account said it helped facilitate a resolution between Sanchez, United Airlines, and the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA), reaffirming its commitment to defending free speech on its platform.
The announcement did not disclose any details about the agreement itself, nor did United or the AFA issue separate public statements outlining the terms. What is clear is that the resolution came before the case reached trial, sparing all sides further litigation, expense, and public scrutiny.
I guess we’ll know if we see Sanchez back on a United flight in uniform…
X had previously highlighted Sanchez’s case as part of its broader messaging about protecting users from retaliation based on lawful speech expressed online. Acting as a facilitator in the settlement allowed X to frame the outcome as a victory for dialogue rather than confrontation.
What The Settlement Likely Includes
While the terms of the agreement have not been made public, employment disputes of this nature tend to follow familiar patterns.
It is likely the settlement includes a financial component to compensate Sanchez for lost wages and legal costs, paired with a release of claims against United Airlines and the union. The agreement may also provide Sanchez with either reinstatement rights or, more commonly, a neutral employment reference that allows him to move forward professionally without the stigma of termination.
I would also suspect there are confidentiality provisions limiting what the parties can say about the dispute and there may be (or already have been) internal policy clarifications regarding social media reviews and disciplinary procedures at United. Whether any formal policy changes were required is unknown, but avoiding precedent-setting court rulings would have been a strong incentive for both United and the AFA to settle.
CONCLUSION
The resolution of Ruben Sanchez’s dispute closes a case that raised uncomfortable questions about where workplace authority ends and private belief begins, especially in an era where personal speech is permanently archived online. While the settlement details remain private, the outcome suggests a negotiated compromise rather than vindication or capitulation by any one party.
I actually have a lot of personal thoughts on this case, but will save them for now since I’m already at 800 words…
What do you think about this news?
You’re born with testicles, you’re a male. Dont like it tough luck. Not everyone gets what they want or believe they should have. Some people are born to be intelligent or beautiful and some are not. We all play the genetic lottery and make do with what we have. You can’t just identify as a tall Korean woman because you don’t agree with being born as a black man.
You can “identify” however you like. The problems start arising when everybody else is expected to ignore reality in order to “validate” your beliefs about yourself, and when refusal to provide that validation comes with a social and/or legal penalty. There’s also a problem with sending minors down the same identity path without properly exploring their psychological motivations first. Mr Sanchez’s posts expressed entirely reasonable, mainstream opinions that would have upset few people outside radical activist circles and HR departments. It’s noteworthy that the complaints had nothing to do with him discriminating against customers on board, but were confined to alleged thought-crimes committed online. I’m glad he’s had a win, and I hope to see many more like it.
He seems like the type of person that should not be working in a public facing job.
The most shocking part of this story to me is that the union refused to represent its member. Isn’t that the whole point of the union?
No really shocking. The whole point of today’s union is to funnel money to the union leadership. If the union leaders think they will get more $ by sacrificing a member to the woke mob, that is what they will do.
I believe that gay feelings can be natural, and there is no way to shake that. It is a result of sin, but the sin isn’t these feelings; it’s when gay feelings turn into gay thoughts. Yes, I am a Christian, no, I am not a Catholic.