$18.6M Verdict in Twin Hill Uniform Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
In September 2016, American Airlines introduced new uniforms for its employees, including flight attendants, pilots, and ground staff. Defendant Twin Hill Acquisition Company, a subsidiary of Tailored Brands, designed and manufactured these uniforms. The airline distributed about 1.4 million garments to more than 65,000 employees worldwide. Soon after distribution, employees reported health concerns linked to wearing or being near the uniforms.
Cause
The plaintiffs alleged the uniforms contained harmful chemicals such as formaldehyde, toluene, nickel, arsenic, and other toxins. They claimed Twin Hill and Tailored Brands negligently designed, manufactured, and distributed defective garments without adequate testing or warnings. Thousands of complaints poured into flight attendant unions. American Airlines acknowledged the issue, set up a call center, and offered replacement garments. Plaintiffs asserted that the manufacturers knew about the risks but failed to recall the uniforms or warn employees.
Injury
Employees reported a wide range of health issues after wearing the uniforms. They experienced skin rashes, respiratory irritation, neurological symptoms, and immune system problems. Many reported persistent inflammation, allergic reactions, and nerve damage. Plaintiffs alleged these injuries caused pain, suffering, and in some cases permanent disability. They argued the uniforms created unsafe working conditions and harmed their ability to perform normal job functions.
Damages
Plaintiffs sought general damages for physical and emotional suffering. They also demanded compensation for medical care, hospital expenses, and ongoing treatment. They claimed loss of earnings and reduced earning capacity due to health limitations. Additionally, they requested punitive damages to penalize the defendants for allegedly ignoring known dangers. Plaintiffs asked for costs of suit, prejudgment interest, and other relief deemed proper by the court.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Alicia Olson | Allison Bollmann | Allison Wood | Amalia Valle Rebaza | Amanda Whitehosue-Duckett | Antoinette Price | April Tester | Benita Kilcrease | Beth Miles | Bonnie Dubbs | Brenda Sabbatino | Byron Sutherland | Camille Dayekh | Candy Cahill | Carol Freeman | Carol Taranto | Casey Hurst | Catherine Ulrich | Cathleen Rusk Delrio | Christopher Michael | Claudia Jackson | Deborah Marcantonio | Debra Jones | Diana Benton | Donna Rogers | Elizabeth Ellison | Elizabeth Henry | Francine Waskowicz | Gloria Barnett | Gretchen Studier | Heather Poole | Holly Booker | Isabelle Smith | Jacqueline Frank | Janet Conroy | Jayeong Yoo | Jazton Kennedy | Joan Quilico | Joanne Chino-Maloney | Jonna Willis | Juan Velez | Julie Mosteller | Karen Varley | Kathleen Kelly | Kazia Robichaud | Kim Niepoky | Klevis Sata | Kristen Wright | Laurie Niedomys | Laurie Nunez | Linda Ostrowski | Linda Penberthy | Liron Shenkar | Lisa Mendez | Lissette Figueroa | Lori Coocen | Lorraine Grossi | Lucinda Yapp | Margaret Cook | Marguerite D’Amico | Maria Rodriguez | Marie Valenzuela | Marilyn Gonzalez | Martha Masla | Mary Barnes | Maryanne Halama | Megan Caraway | Megan Poset | Melissa McCullough | Michael Zeitz | Nancy Flemer | Nancy Huenergardt | Nancy Schneider | Nancy Simpson | Patricia Stack | Patti Wilson | Peter Sneddon | Rebecca Lesieutre | Rhonda Mcelrath | Rita Diz | Robin Adams | Roslyn Kirton | Sandra Burnell | Sandra Hayen | Sara Beitter | Shawn Davis | Shirley Mok | Stacey Henry | Suzanne Pattillo | Terri Cribbs | Terri Hegwald | Tracey Silver-Charan | Tracy Kozo | Troy Lim | Tyuana Green | Vicki Schaller | Vickie Issac | Virginia Summers | Whitney Hedman
Counsel for Plaintiff: Andrew Joseph Spielberger | Brian Stephen Kabateck | Daniel Keith Balaban
Experts for Plaintiff: Edward J Faeder | Jordan A. Firestone | Pamela Jill Anderson-Mahoney | David Brookstein | Howard Pitchon | Timothy Lanning | Adriene Sprouse | Stephanie L. McCarter | Jonathan Beck | Dan I. Naim | Miguel Gonzalez | Shiva Lalezar | Susan A. Maline | Nachman Brautbar
Defendant(s): Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. | Tailored Brands Purchasing, LLC | Tailored Brands, Inc. | Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc.
Counsel for Defendants: Dana Alden Fox | Francis A. Citera (Pro Hac Vice) | Richard Tabura | Robert Vaughn Good | Sabrina Gallo (Pro Hac Vice)
Experts for Defendant: Marion J. Fedoruk | Abigail Oelker | John Fessler | Erik Volk
Claims
The complaint asserted three causes of action. First, strict products liability targeted Twin Hill, Tailored Brands, and Does 1–100 for distributing dangerously defective uniforms. Second, negligent products liability alleged reckless design, manufacture, and testing failures. Third, negligence claimed the defendants failed to provide safe uniforms or adequate warnings, directly causing widespread injuries among American Airlines employees.
Defense
Defendants Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc., Tailored Brands, Inc., and The Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. filed general denials to the Fourth Amended Complaint, rejecting all allegations and damages claimed by Plaintiffs. They argued that the complaint failed to state valid causes of action and that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.
The answer raised multiple affirmative defenses, including regulatory approval of the uniforms, compliance with state-of-the-art manufacturing standards, and protections under the Restatement (Second) and (Third) of Torts. They asserted assumption of risk, consent, comparative fault, and alternative causation, arguing other factors caused Plaintiffs’ injuries. Defendants also claimed failure to mitigate damages, bar on punitive damages under constitutional protections, and limits on applying California law to non-residents. They further contended that any recovery should be reduced by collateral sources like insurance or benefits.
Jury Verdict
On June 13, 2025, a jury in Alameda County found Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. liable for supplying and failing to recall defective airline uniforms that injured employees. The jury determined the products failed consumer safety expectations and that Twin Hill’s negligence substantially caused harm. It awarded Plaintiff Virginia Hardie $3,932,783, Plaintiff Lynda Hinckley $3,551,137, Plaintiff Tunder Fejer-Konert $3,919,361, Plaintiff Beth Miles $3,621,734, and Plaintiff Alicia Olson $3,648,534, totaling over $18.6 million in damages. Fault was apportioned 90% to Twin Hill and 10% to American Airlines, and the jury rejected claims for punitive damages.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com