United Airlines Pilot Couldn’t Fly After A Stroke—His Union Urged Removal, And His Military Bias Suit Failed

A United Airlines pilot left for military duty in September 2001, planning to come back two years later. Instead, he was furloughed, suffered a stroke, lost his medical clearance and eventually learned that his own union had recommended removing him from the airline’s seniority list. Twenty-five years after that leave began, William Michael Bumpus has lost his military discrimination lawsuit. On November 6, a federal judge in Chicago ruled that he hadn’t produced evidence that his military service motivated United’s decisions. United hired Bumpus in June 2000 and assigned him to Denver. He took approved leave in September 2001 to serve with the Air Force Reserve’s 706th Fighter Squadron, expecting to return in September 2003. Then United furloughed him in 2002, along with many other pilots. The airline struggled after 9/11 and went through a prolonged bankruptcy. According to his amended complaint, he was at Barksdale Air Force Base when a United supervisor called. He explained that he’d stay employed by the Air Force. On September 5, 2006, Bumpus suffered a stroke while on active duty. He was hospitalized and lost the medical certification he needed to fly. The record establishes that this happened during military service, but there’s no indication military service caused the stroke. United recalled him in May 2007. He accepted and told the airline about his medical condition. He didn’t request leave, although the recall offered that option. In January 2008, United told him he’d remain furloughed, with his recall rights expiring in March 2012 if he didn’t obtain medical clearance. He couldn’t fly for United, but the airline was still holding his space open. His employee record showed United returning him to active status and furloughing him again on March 2, 2009. A new furlough could start a fresh ten-year recall period, extending his right to return until March 2019. United offered another recall in 2012, and he requested a military deferment, which the airline acknowledged. His military service ended in March 2013. He still lacked medical clearance and bypassed another recall that September. In 2015, United’s furlough return coordinator told him he’d looked further into the case and confirmed the March 2019 deadline. Then, in 2017, the Air Line Pilots Association reviewed irregularities in United’s seniority list. The union recommended removing Bumpus. United agreed, concluding that his recall rights had expired in 2012. In January 2019, Bumpus sought to return and obtain medical leave to preserve his employment while resolving his medical certification. United initially told him his recall rights ran until March 2019. Days later, the airline reversed itself: its review with the union showed those rights had already expired. He finally obtained a first class medical certificate in June 2020, nearly fourteen years after the stroke. United had offered to consider him as a new hire, but he didn’t apply. He wanted his original seniority. Bumpus pursued a grievance and, in 2021, sued United and the union to obtain access to arbitration. The union wouldn’t take his case forward. He eventually got an arbitration hearing, but his grievance was dismissed as untimely in March 2023. He filed a lawsuit in June 2023, seeking reinstatement with full seniority, lost pay and other damages. He alleged that United accommodated other pilots and brought back 111 pilots without military service while refusing to restore him. His claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act took two different approaches: United owed him reemployment after military service. This included his argument that it should accommodate his medical condition through leave or an appropriate alternative position. United treated him worse because of his military service. He pointed to other pilots who received leave or returned with their seniority intact. I’ve covered an American Airlines case involving a reservist who couldn’t legally fly but was nevertheless entitled to prompt reemployment in an appropriate role. But Bumpus lost his reemployment claims in May 2025. The judge found that his absence from September 2001 to his accepted recall in May 2007 exceeded the law’s five-year service limit. He argued that time spent on economic furlough shouldn’t count: United wasn’t offering him work during those years anyway. What remained was discrimination. Bumpus needed evidence that his military service was at least one reason for United’s actions. His argument about leave ran into a basic problem: he hadn’t requested it in 2007. He also hadn’t shown that the other pilots received leave without asking. United’s treatment of those pilots didn’t establish that it denied him the same benefit because he served in the military. He did seek medical accommodation in 2019. By then, however, United and the union believed his recall rights had expired. The judge assumed, for purposes of deciding the case, that Bumpus was right about the 2019 deadline. Even with that assumption, he hadn’t shown military bias. United also removed two pilots with no military background after concluding their recall rights had expired, too. So even if United miscalculated, it wasn’t motivated by anti-military bias. The pilot here wasn’t punished for his service. He couldn’t fly for United for years and they held out a spot for him anyway. It’s a complicated case that generated contradictory answers about exactly what his rights were under a union contract and government requirements. The union agreed he should lose his seniority. His medical clearance eventually expired again in 2024. He last flew for United a quarter century ago, and he can’t currently fly even if he wanted to. Topics on this page