Forfeiture, Futility, and Exhaustion: The Seventh Circuit’s Clarification of Litigation Duties in Anderson v. United Airlines (2025)

1. Introduction

Case name: Thomas Anderson, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc., et al.
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Date of decision: 9 June 2025
Panel: Circuit Judges Jackson-Akiwumi, Pryor, and Maldonado (opinion by Pryor, J.)

Following United Airlines’ 2021 COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates, a group of employees spanning pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and customer-service agents sued United and several executives. The plaintiffs alleged a dozen federal and state-law violations—ranging from Title VII to negligence—stemming from United’s handling of religious and medical accommodation requests. After two unsuccessful attempts to amend their pleading, the district court dismissed the action with prejudice. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The decision is noteworthy not because it re-writes substantive employment or public-health law, but because it crystallises three procedural pillars:

1. Forfeiture and waiver—a party’s failure to respond to an opposing argument can be fatal, and every independent ground for dismissal must be contested on appeal.
2. Futility-based denial of leave to amend—district courts retain broad discretion to refuse further amendments once plaintiffs repeatedly fail to cure defects.
3. Exhaustion in Title VII litigation—the statutory prerequisite of filing an EEOC charge and obtaining a right-to-sue letter remains strictly enforced.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Seventh Circuit conducted de novo review of the futility ruling yet affirmed dismissal on every claim.
• Several causes of action (FDCA, invasion of privacy, negligence) were deemed forfeited because plaintiffs failed to rebut United’s arguments in the district court and on appeal.
• The Illinois Whistleblower Act claim was inadequately pleaded; plaintiffs did not show that vaccination violates FAA medical-certificate regulations.
• All Title VII claims failed for lack of EEOC right-to-sue letters, and plaintiffs offered no valid exception to statutory exhaustion.
• Given two failed amendments and no proposed cure, the district court properly denied further leave and dismissed with prejudice.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Crestview Village Apartments v. HUD, 383 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2004) – authorises denial of leave to amend when the new pleading would not survive a motion to dismiss.
• Knowlton v. City of Wauwatosa, 119 F.4th 507 (7th Cir. 2024) – reinforces the “broad discretion” to deny amendment after repeated deficiencies.
• Runnion v. Girl Scouts, 786 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2015) – sets de novo review for futility; cited as the standard of appellate scrutiny.
• Boliaux & Klein decisions – require appellants to attack all independent grounds (e.g., forfeiture and merits), not merely one.
• Chaidez v. Ford Motor Co., 937 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 2019), and Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (1984) – reaffirm the strictness of Title VII exhaustion and timeliness.
• Perez v. Staples, 31 F.4th 560 (7th Cir. 2022) – interprets the Illinois Whistleblower Act; the court applied its reasoning to dismiss the pilots’ claims.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

a. Forfeiture and Waiver

The panel underscored that litigation is an adversarial enterprise: when plaintiffs ignore an argument (e.g., lack of a private FDCA right of action) they forfeit the claim. Moreover, on appeal they must confront every basis on which they previously lost—failure to do so is itself waiver.

b. Futility-Based Denial of Leave to Amend

Rule 15(a) promotes liberal amendment, yet the court clarified its limit: after two unsuccessful attempts, continued amendment is futile when plaintiffs cannot articulate a viable cure. The decision harmonises Crestview, Knowlton, and Runnion, granting district judges latitude to end serially-defective pleadings without violating due process.

c. Title VII Exhaustion

Plaintiffs’ bare assertion that right-to-sue letters were “in process” could not override the statutory mandate (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)). The court treated exhaustion as non-jurisdictional but mandatory; thus dismissal, not abeyance, was the appropriate remedy, especially because no letters surfaced before dismissal.

d. Illinois Whistleblower Act Interpretation

Plaintiffs’ creative reading of FAA regulation 61.53(a)(1) failed. The rule bars pilots from flying when medically unfit, not from merely receiving a vaccine. The court declined to infer illegality—and hence retaliation—where federal aviation regulators have not prohibited vaccination.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Procedural diligence elevated: Litigants in the Seventh Circuit must now treat forfeiture and exhaustion as central pillars; silence in briefing is outcome-determinative.
• District-court efficiency: Trial judges gain reinforced backing to cut off endless amendment, preventing “litigation by iteration.”
• Employment-mandate cases: Plaintiffs challenging workplace COVID-19 policies (or future health mandates) must craft precise statutory theories and complete administrative prerequisites before suing.
• Potential spill-over: The reasoning applies beyond Title VII—to ADA, ADEA, and GINA cases where exhaustion and right-to-sue letters are likewise required.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Forfeiture vs. Waiver – “Forfeiture” is the inadvertent loss of a right by failing to press it; “waiver” is the intentional relinquishment of a right. Both bar later revival.
• Right-to-Sue Letter – A letter from the EEOC giving a complainant 90 days to file suit; without it, most Title VII claims cannot enter federal court.
• Futility – A proposed amendment is “futile” when, assuming its truth, it still lacks a legal claim; courts need not allow such amendments.
• Constructive Discharge – When an employer’s actions make working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign.
• Hostile Work Environment (Title VII) – A pattern of severe or pervasive discriminatory conduct that alters the conditions of employment.

5. Conclusion

Anderson v. United Airlines does not blaze new substantive trails in employment or public-health law. Instead, its contribution is procedural clarity. The Seventh Circuit made three messages unmistakable:

1. Silence is surrender—parties must answer their opponent’s arguments or risk forfeiture, and must tackle every ground of loss on appeal.
2. Second (or third) chances have limits—when amendments remain deficient, district courts may end the case for futility.
3. Statutory prerequisites matter—Title VII’s administrative exhaustion is not an optional bureaucratic step but a gatekeeper to federal court.

In practice, the decision will streamline future litigation by encouraging complete, responsive briefing, discouraging speculative pleading, and reaffirming that procedural rules carry substantive consequences. For practitioners, Anderson is a cautionary tale: comply early, argue every point, and never assume the court will overlook procedural missteps.