Find out how a uniform rollout turned into a legal lesson for HR leaders at major US employers
Delta Airlines’ uniform overhaul landed in court after employees alleged that new outfits from Lands’ End caused property damage and health complaints.
On October 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision in favor of Lands’ End, closing the door on claims brought by groups of Delta employees. The case arose after Delta partnered with Lands’ End to supply updated uniforms, distributing nearly 100 types of garments to 64,000 employees. Not long after the rollout, hundreds of employees reported that the uniforms transferred dye onto their property and that they experienced symptoms such as rashes, itchiness, fatigue, headaches, anxiety, memory issues, coughing, breathing difficulties, and vocal cord problems.
Two groups of employees brought lawsuits against Lands’ End. The Gilbert plaintiffs, a group of five, filed a putative class action seeking compensation for property damage and for breach of express warranties under Delta’s contract with Lands’ End. The Andrews plaintiffs, comprising 605 individually named Delta employees, brought product liability claims, alleging that the uniforms were defectively manufactured and designed, and that Lands’ End failed to warn of the alleged defects.
The record included laboratory test results and expert reports in textile chemistry, epidemiology, toxicology, and dermatology. Tests found that the uniforms did transfer dye (“crocked”) and contained chemicals and heavy metals such as perfluorooctanoic acid, antimony, chromium, mercury, and formaldehyde. Worn garments generally contained higher concentrations of these substances, which some technicians speculated could be due to reactions with personal care products. However, laboratory technicians noted that the tested garments met general industry standards for crockfastness, and expert testimony was equivocal on whether the chemicals present were at harmful levels or whether the uniforms were defective.
The district court excluded key expert opinions, finding that the plaintiffs’ experts did not reliably establish that the uniforms were defective or that they caused the alleged injuries. The court also found that the warranty claims failed because plaintiffs had not complied with the contract’s return requirements – specifically, returning the garments with the required form. The appellate court reviewed these findings and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Lands’ End.
This outcome highlights the importance for HR leaders of clear processes in vendor management, contract compliance, and employee health and safety. The court’s decision underscores that, in large-scale uniform rollouts, employers must not only ensure product quality but also follow contractual procedures for addressing employee complaints.
It is important to note that the details of the employees’ allegations were not proven in court. The courts found insufficient evidence to support the claims of defect or causation, and the warranty claims were denied due to noncompliance with return procedures. The decision, issued on October 23, 2025, brings the litigation to a close, with the courts siding with Lands’ End on all claims.
