The case of former United Airlines pilot John Paul Castillo III has sparked renewed debate about discrimination, disability rights, and fairness in the aviation industry. Castillo, an accomplished pilot with both military and commercial aviation experience, filed a federal lawsuit against United Airlines in October 2025, alleging that the company unlawfully terminated him based on racial bias and a perceived disability.
His complaint raises serious questions about how airlines handle substance-related incidents among pilots, and whether equal standards are applied regardless of race or perceived medical conditions. Castillo’s lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, accuses United of violating multiple federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and of defamation.
His claims center on the argument that the airline unfairly labeled him as having an alcohol-use disorder, retaliated against him for asserting his rights, and treated him more harshly than a white colleague accused of a similar offense. The case highlights a growing tension between corporate safety policies and the individual rights of employees—especially in professions where public safety and perception are paramount.
The DUI Arrest and Disputed Evaluation
According to the lawsuit, the chain of events began in July 2023 when John Paul Castillo III was arrested in Texas on suspicion of driving under the influence. A field sobriety test was administered, but crucially, there was no blood alcohol test conducted. Castillo maintained that he was not intoxicated, and the charges against him were later dismissed. Despite the dismissal, the incident set off a series of internal reviews by United Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), both of which have strict requirements for pilots involved in any alcohol-related incidents.
United allegedly pressured Castillo to participate in its HIMS program—an internal substance abuse monitoring system created in coordination with the FAA. The Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS) program is designed to rehabilitate pilots diagnosed with substance-use disorders and reintegrate them into flight duty after treatment and sustained sobriety verification. While the program has helped many pilots return to flying, critics argue that it can be misapplied when there is no medical basis for enrollment.
Castillo refused to enter the HIMS program, asserting that an independent substance-abuse evaluation had cleared him of any disorder. The evaluation, according to the complaint, concluded that his DUI arrest was a “one-off” incident with no clinical indication of alcohol dependency or abuse. Before he could submit this evaluation to United, the airline terminated him, citing the temporary lapse of his FAA first-class medical certificate.
Read : American Missionary Pilot Kevin Rideout Kidnapped in Niger’s Niamey
Such a certificate is required for all active commercial pilots, but it can be temporarily suspended during any investigation involving substance use. Castillo’s firing, therefore, occurred not because of a confirmed diagnosis or medical disqualification, but during a bureaucratic delay in the renewal of his medical clearance. The lawsuit alleges that United used this lapse as a pretext to terminate him rather than allowing time for the FAA process to conclude.
Claims of Racial Discrimination and Unequal Treatment
The central thrust of Castillo’s lawsuit is that United Airlines discriminated against him based on race and on a mistaken perception that he had an alcohol-use disorder. Castillo, who identifies as Hispanic, argues that United applied different standards to him than to a similarly situated white pilot. In the lawsuit, he cites a case where another probationary pilot—who was white—was also charged with DUI around the same period but remained employed because he agreed to enroll in the HIMS program.
Castillo argues that this inconsistency reflects bias in how United’s management interpreted and enforced its policies. “United’s decision to fire Mr. Castillo while allowing other pilots—including those actually diagnosed with alcohol-use disorder—to remain employed during the FAA review demonstrates disparate treatment based on its mistaken perception that Mr. Castillo was an alcoholic,” the lawsuit states.
Read : Fascinating Facts about Pilot Whales Stranded on Australian Beaches Today
This claim ties directly into both the ADA and Title VII. Under the ADA, an employer cannot discriminate against an employee based on a perceived disability, even if that perception is mistaken. Title VII, meanwhile, prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. Castillo’s lawsuit blends these two principles, asserting that racialized stereotypes about Hispanic men and alcohol use informed United’s judgment.
Specifically, the complaint references “racialized stereotypes about Hispanic men and alcohol use” as a factor influencing the company’s decision-making. The implication is that Castillo’s ethnicity made him more vulnerable to suspicion of alcoholism, despite a lack of evidence supporting that assumption. Such stereotyping, if proven, would constitute a violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.
The lawsuit also asserts that United’s actions were not motivated by legitimate safety concerns, but rather by bias and retaliation. Castillo points to the contrasting treatment of white pilots, including some who had been formally diagnosed with alcohol-use disorders yet were allowed to remain on the payroll while completing treatment. He argues that United’s willingness to accommodate those pilots—but not him—illustrates a systemic inequity in how disciplinary and rehabilitative policies are applied.
Retaliation, Defamation, and Reputational Damage
Beyond the discrimination claims, Castillo’s lawsuit also alleges retaliation and defamation—two additional layers that could substantially increase the potential damages sought. The retaliation claim stems from an incident following Castillo’s decision to hire an attorney after his arrest. According to the lawsuit, United’s Chief Pilot, Ernie Aller, told a union representative that Castillo was being terminated for “lawyering up and not communicating.”
Castillo’s legal team argues that this statement indicates the airline punished him for exercising his right to counsel—a protected activity under employment law. “Aller’s statement demonstrates that United’s decision was motivated not only by its misperception of alcoholism but also by retaliation for Mr. Castillo’s protected act of retaining counsel to defend his rights,” the lawsuit claims.
This alleged retaliation could be particularly damaging for United’s defense, as retaliation claims often hinge on timing and motive rather than direct evidence of discrimination. The fact that Castillo’s dismissal occurred soon after he retained legal representation may strengthen his argument that the firing was at least partly retaliatory.
Read : Southwest Airlines Pilot David Allsop Arrested for DUI at Savannah Airport
The defamation claim concerns statements United allegedly made to the FAA following Castillo’s termination. The airline reportedly told the FAA that Castillo’s employment ended due to “pilot performance issues.” Castillo contends that this statement was false and misleading, implying that he had failed to meet professional or technical standards rather than being fired over a disputed medical certification.
“United knew or should have known that the ‘pilot-performance’ designation was false when it was submitted, and it unreasonably delayed correcting the record for approximately eighteen months,” the lawsuit states. During that period, Castillo claims he incurred significant legal costs to have the record corrected, all while suffering professional harm from the false designation.
The complaint further argues that United’s delay caused “reputational harm” and deprived him of future employment opportunities. In an industry as tightly regulated and reputation-dependent as commercial aviation, a record suggesting performance issues or substance concerns can be devastating. Airlines are cautious about hiring pilots with any history that might raise questions about judgment, reliability, or medical fitness. As a result, Castillo asserts that the defamation cost him not just his job at United, but potentially his entire aviation career.
A Larger Debate About Fairness and Oversight
Beyond the personal stakes for Castillo, the lawsuit draws attention to broader questions about how major airlines manage allegations of substance misuse among pilots. The HIMS program, while designed as a rehabilitative pathway, has faced criticism for being overly intrusive and for sometimes ensnaring pilots who may not actually have an addiction. Critics argue that the fear of stigma or unjust labeling can lead to unnecessary terminations and discourage pilots from seeking help for legitimate issues.
For minority pilots like Castillo, those concerns may be compounded by racial bias. The aviation industry has historically struggled with diversity—particularly among its pilot corps, which remains overwhelmingly white and male. According to FAA statistics, fewer than 7 percent of commercial pilots in the United States identify as Hispanic or Latino. Advocates argue that such underrepresentation can create environments where stereotypes and implicit biases influence disciplinary or evaluative decisions, even unintentionally.
If Castillo’s allegations are proven true, the case could have far-reaching implications for how airlines handle perceived disabilities and alcohol-related incidents. A ruling in his favor could reaffirm that companies cannot treat an unsubstantiated perception of impairment as justification for termination, nor can they apply policies unevenly based on race or ethnicity.
The case also underscores the delicate balance between maintaining public safety and ensuring fair treatment for employees. Airlines have an obligation to uphold the highest safety standards, given the enormous responsibility pilots carry. However, when disciplinary measures appear arbitrary or biased, they risk undermining trust both within the company and with the public. Castillo’s claim that he was fired not for actual misconduct, but because of a mischaracterization rooted in stereotype, strikes at the heart of that ethical balance.
As of the latest filings, Castillo is seeking reinstatement or front pay in lieu of reemployment, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees. His case remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
If successful, his lawsuit could set a precedent for how perceived disabilities are treated in aviation and potentially reshape internal policies across the industry. For now, it serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by pilots navigating both the skies and the complex intersection of race, reputation, and regulation on the ground.