Case docket
Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc. — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc. — 3 court filings in the archive from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed between July 8, 2024 and March 9, 2026. Among them: 1 motion, 1 judgment and 1 opinion.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |
|---|---|
| Filings | 3 public filings |
| Filed | 2024-07-08 – 2026-03-09 |
| Document types | motion (1), judgment (1), opinion (1) |
| Original PDFs | 3 of 3 |
Case summary
This page holds three filings from the Fifth Circuit appeal in Sambrano v. United Airlines, Incorporated, No. 24-10708, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, No. 4:21-cv-1074. The petition for permission to appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), filed July 8, 2024 by David Sambrano and Genise Kincannon, asked the court of appeals to review the district court's class certification order. On March 9, 2026 the court issued an opinion by Circuit Judge Engelhardt and a judgment affirming the district court, with each party to bear its own costs on appeal. The underlying claims concern religious and medical accommodations to United's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiffs-appellees and cross-appellants Genise Kincannon and David Sambrano, with plaintiffs-appellees David Castillo, Kimberly Hamilton, Debra Jennefer Thal Jonas, Jarrad Rains, Alyse Medlin, Charles Burk and Seth Turnbough, each on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; defendant-appellant and cross-appellee United Airlines, Incorporated |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 24-10708, before Circuit Judges Higginson, Willett and Engelhardt; on appeal from USDC No. 4:21-CV-1074, N.D. Tex., Judge Mark Pittman. The Rule 23(f) petition was docketed as No. 24-90016 |
| Program | Not named in the filings on this page. The case concerns an employer's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, not a pandemic relief program |
| Claims | The opinion records that the plaintiffs alleged United's plan violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying them a reasonable accommodation. The appeal itself is from the district court's class certification order |
| Disposition or status | Affirmed. The judgment of March 9, 2026 orders that the judgment of the district court is affirmed and that each party bear its own costs on appeal; the mandate issues under Fed. R. App. P. 41(b). Judge Willett concurred in all but Parts IV.B.3 and V of the majority opinion |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What did the Fifth Circuit decide?
That the district court did not abuse its discretion, so its class certification order is affirmed. The district court had rejected two of the three proposed classes and certified a modified subclass of religious-accommodation seekers whom United accommodated with unpaid leave; both sides cross-appealed.
What was the underlying dispute?
The opinion records that in August 2021 United instituted a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for every United States employee, requiring vaccination within five weeks of FDA approval of a vaccine or, if none was approved, by October 25, 2021, with religious or medical accommodation available on request.
What is the Rule 23(f) petition?
The plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the class certification order, filed July 8, 2024 and dated July 5, 2024, naming David Sambrano and Genise Kincannon as petitioners.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
3 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
- Petition for permission to appeal (Rule 23(f))Motion · PDF
- Judgment — Sambrano v. United AirlinesJudgment · PDF
- Opinion — Sambrano v. United AirlinesOpinion · PDF
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.