https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cgsi-wQEuxqIAhDJUM9OhNfJxom4Nouf/view?usp=sharing
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
DAVID SAMBRANO, DAVID CASTILLO, KIMBERLY HAMILTON, DEBRA JENNEFER THAL JONAS, GENISE KINCANNON, and SETH TURNBOUGH, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.
Civil Action No.: 21-1074
Jury Trial Demanded
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
Religious discrimination—failure to accommodate
On behalf of Plaintiffs Sambrano, Castillo, Hamilton, Jonas, and Kincannon,
and others similarly situated
Violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
Religious discrimination—retaliation
On behalf of Plaintiffs Sambrano, Castillo, Hamilton, Jonas, and Kincannon,
and others similarly situated
Violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.
Disability discrimination—failure to accommodate
On behalf of Plaintiffs Sambrano, Castillo, Jonas, Kincannon, Turnbough,
and others similarly situated
COUNT IV
Violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.
Disability discrimination—retaliation
On behalf of Plaintiffs Sambrano, Castillo, Jonas, Kincannon, Turnbough,
and others similarly situated
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs request that the Court:
a. Certify this action as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b).
b. Certify at least three subclasses: (1) employees who have sought either a religious or medical accommodation and previously recovered from COVID-19 and possess antibodies against COVID-19; (2) employees who sought religious accommodations and lack COVID-19 antibodies; and (3) employees who sought medical accommodations and lack COVID-19 antibodies.
c. Declare that United has violated Title VII and the ADA by failing to engage in the interactive process in response to requests for accommodations to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
d. Declare that United has violated Title VII and the ADA by discriminating against its employees by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
e. Declare that United has violated Title VII and the ADA by retaliating against employees who engaged in protected activity.
f. Issue a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, see Drew, 480 F.2d at 74, followed by a permanent injunction, enjoining United from terminating or placing on indefinite unpaid leave any employee who has a religious or medical basis for seeking an accommodation, and enjoining United from denying as untimely any request for a religious or medical accommodation. The Court should enjoin such actions until United has completed the interactive process for all employees who request such an accommodation and granted reasonable accommodations as required by federal law—which could include: (i) for those who test positive for antibodies against COVID-19, allowing them to be accommodated through regular antibody testing and mask wearing; and (ii) for those otherwise qualifying for medical and religious accommodations, allowing them to attend work wearing a mask while around others, and submitting to periodic COVID-19 testing.
g. Award Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, damages, including back pay, reinstatement or front pay, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, and compensatory damages.
h. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
i. Grant any other relief that the Court deems just, proper, and equitable.
j. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues upon which there is a federal right to a jury trial.
September 21, 2021
REFERENCES:
Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc. (4:21-cv-01074)
District Court, N.D. Texas
Sep 21, 2021
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against United Airlines, Inc. filed by David Sambrano, Debra Jennefer Thal Jonas, Seth Turnbough, Genise Kincannon, David Castillo, Kimberly Hamilton. (Filing fee $402; Receipt number 0539-12237815) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements and Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet) (Wiegand, Robert) Modified docket text on 9/21/2021 (pef). Modified docket text on 9/22/2021 (pef). (Entered: 09/21/2021)
Main Document Complaint
Oct 8, 2021
ORDER: The Court concludes that Plaintiffs' Motion for Continuance (ECF No. 50 ) should be and is DENIED. Further, based on the arguments presented at the hearing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to submit a filing by October 11, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. that states whether Plaintiffs will offer expert testimony from Dr. Bhattacharya and Mr. Bates via affidavit or declaration, or whether Plaintiffs will offer live expert testimony at the October 13, 2021, hearing. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 10/8/2021) (pef) (Entered: 10/08/2021)
Main Document Order Setting Deadline/Hearing
Oct 12, 2021
ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Response Brief, filed October 11, 2021. ECF No. 61 . Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Therefore, the Clerk of the Court is INSTRUCTED to file Plaintiffs' Response Brief, attached to the Motion as Exhibit 1 (ECF No. 61 -1), as a separate docket entry. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 10/12/2021) (pef) (Entered: 10/12/2021)
Main Doc
Order on Motion for Leave to FileOct 12, 2021
Main Doc
No comments:
Post a Comment