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, Civil Action No.: 4:21-01074-P

Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

 

Defendant.

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiffs David Sambrano, David Castillo, Kimberly Hamilton, Debra Jennefer 

Jonas, Genise Kincannon, and Seth Turnbough (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated, complain as follows against Defendant United Airlines, Inc. 

(“United”). 

2. This is a class action brought to remedy United’s pattern of discrimination against 

employees who requested religious or medical accommodations from United’s mandate that its 

employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine. 

3. Rather than complying with its obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), United responded by 

informing the requesting employees that they would be effectively terminated.

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1 of 33 PageID 623
2

4. United’s actions have left Plaintiffs with the impossible choice of either taking the 

COVID-19 vaccine, at the expense of their religious beliefs and their health, or losing their 

livelihoods. In doing so, United has violated Title VII and the ADA by failing to engage in the 

interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations, and also by retaliating against 

employees who engaged in protected activity.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff David Sambrano is a Captain with United. Mr. Sambrano requested a 

religious accommodation from United’s vaccine mandate, to which United responded by offering 

only an indefinite period of unpaid leave as a “reasonable accommodation.” Mr. Sambrano also 

attempted to request a medical accommodation, but United’s online accommodation request 

system, which was the only formal mechanism United offered for employees to submit either a 

religious or medical accommodation request, prevented him from doing so. Mr. Sambrano is a 

citizen and resident of Texas, and lives in the Northern District of Texas.

6. Plaintiff David Castillo is an Aircraft Technician with United at Dallas Fort Worth 

International Airport (“DFW”) and lives in Tarrant County, Texas. Mr. Castillo requested both a 

religious and a medical accommodation from United’s vaccine mandate on September 17, 2021. 

Because United stated that it was no longer accepting requests through its online accommodation 

request system on August 31, 2021, which was the only formal mechanism United offered its 

employees to submit an accommodation request, Mr. Castillo made the unilateral decision to

request these accommodations through his supervisor. A United Human Resources representative 

has now informed Mr. Castillo through his supervisor that the religious accommodation request is 

untimely, but that Mr. Castillo may submit his medical request. Mr. Castillo’s religious 

accommodation request has thus been administratively denied. Even assuming the representation 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 2 of 33 PageID 624
3

about the medical accommodation is accurate, however, Mr. Castillo will likely also be offered the 

same “accommodation” of indefinite unpaid leave if his request is granted. And if he is not offered 

unpaid leave, he will be terminated as of September 27, 2021, pursuant to United’s vaccine 

mandate. Mr. Castillo is a citizen and resident of Texas, and lives in the Northern District of Texas.

7. Plaintiff Kimberly Hamilton is a Station Operations Representative with United. 

Ms. Hamilton requested a religious accommodation from United’s vaccine mandate, to which 

United responded by offering only an indefinite period of unpaid leave as a “reasonable 

accommodation.” Ms. Hamilton is a citizen and resident of Texas, and lives in the Northern 

District of Texas.

8. Plaintiff Debra Jennefer Thal Jonas is a Customer Service Representative assigned 

to the United Club at DFW. Ms. Jonas requested a medical accommodation from United’s vaccine 

mandate, to which United responded by offering only an indefinite period of unpaid leave as a 

“reasonable accommodation.” Ms. Jonas also sought to request a religious accommodation, but 

United’s online accommodation request system prevented her from requesting a second form of 

accommodation because employees had no other formal mechanism for submitting another

accommodation request. Ms. Jonas is a citizen and resident of Texas, and lives in the Northern 

District of Texas.

9. Plaintiff Genise Kincannon is a Flight Attendant for United. She lives in the Fort 

Worth area. Ms. Kincannon requested a religious accommodation from United’s vaccine mandate, 

to which United responded by offering only an indefinite period of unpaid leave as a “reasonable 

accommodation.” Ms. Kincannon is a citizen and resident of Texas, and lives in the Northern 

District of Texas.

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 3 of 33 PageID 625
4

10. Plaintiff Seth Turnbough is a Captain with United. Mr. Turnbough is based in 

Chicago and flies through DFW in his duties as a Captain. Mr. Turnbough requested a medical 

accommodation from United’s vaccine mandate, to which United responded by offering only an 

indefinite period of unpaid leave as a “reasonable accommodation.” In addition to his work trips 

through DFW, Mr. Turnbough regularly uses his “ride share” passes to fly into DFW to visit his 

local family—passes that would be taken away under United’s proffered accommodation.

11. Defendant United is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Chicago, Illinois. United regularly operates flights through DFW and maintains a large workforce 

at that airport. DFW is located within this judicial district; a substantial portion of which is located

in Tarrant County, Texas.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). 

13. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2201 and 2202.

14. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a 

substantial part of the events complained of herein occurred in this District and Division. 

15. This case challenges United’s decision to implement a COVID-19 vaccine mandate 

without also granting reasonable accommodations as required under Title VII and the ADA. On 

information and belief, several activities and occurrences related to the development of the 

mandate and the determination for how to respond to accommodation requests occurred in this 

District, and in Texas more broadly. Indeed, United’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Scott 

Kirby, lives in Dallas. And given the significance of United’s vaccine policy, and Mr. Kirby’s 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 4 of 33 PageID 626
5

personal involvement in the development and communication of that policy, it is implausible that 

Mr. Kirby would not have engaged in that decision making while at his residence in Dallas. 

Moreover, one of United’s seven hubs is in Houston, Texas. Additionally, United maintains a 

corporate support office in Houston, Texas. 

16. Moreover, United’s actions are felt by Plaintiffs in this District, and this is where 

the unlawful employment practices occurred. Each time Plaintiffs who reside in this District 

access United’s electronic databases—including Help Hub—they are asked whether they want to 

withdraw their request for a reasonable accommodation. Similarly, Plaintiffs receive United’s 

constant e-mail reminders about the vaccine mandate while located in this District. Moreover, if 

Plaintiffs elect to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, those who reside in this District will likely do 

so here. And finally, if placed on unpaid leave, they will be harmed in this District. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Response

17. By Spring 2020, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which can cause the disease

COVID-19, spread rapidly around the world.

18. Around this same time, United began implementing certain mitigation procedures 

for its workforce, including several of the following requirements for its employees: wear Unitedissued masks, gloves, and, for some, eye protection; maintain distance from others; and participate 

in temperature checks. United also began increasing the cleaning regimens of its aircraft—

spraying cabins with an anti-viral spray between flights—and it upgraded its HEPA filters to 

prevent the spread of COVID-19.

19. Since that time, at least three separate COVID-19 vaccines have been developed

and authorized for use in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 5 of 33 PageID 627
6

an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 1, 2020. 

One week later, the FDA issued a second EUA for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Finally, the 

FDA issued an EUA for the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on February 27, 2021. 

20. On August 23, 2021, the FDA issued full approval for the Pfizer vaccine Comirnaty 

for individuals 16 years of age and older. Pfizer’s EUA also remains in place.

21. To date, the FDA has not yet issued any other approvals for either the Moderna or 

Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

B. United’s Vaccine Mandate

22. On August 6, 2021, United’s CEO Scott Kirby announced that all employees would 

be required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine within five weeks of the FDA granting full approval 

of a vaccine, or five weeks after September 20, 2021, whichever came first. 

23. As noted, the FDA approved Pfizer’s COVID-19 Comirnaty vaccine on August 23, 

2021. 

24. Accordingly, United employees must receive at least the first dose of a COVID-19 

Comirnaty vaccine by September 27, 2021.

25. Employees are required to upload a copy of their vaccination record to a United 

database called Flying Together by September 27, 2021. See Thomas Pallini, United is the first 

US airline to require all employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, BUSINESS INSIDER (Aug. 6, 

2021), https://www.businessinsider.com/united-requiring-us-employees-get-covid-19-vaccine2021-8.

26. Employees who do not upload a copy of their vaccination record showing a 

COVID-19 vaccination will be terminated. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 6 of 33 PageID 628
7

27. United’s mandate is absolute—there is no alternative for periodic testing, mask 

wearing, or social distancing, even for employees who have already had COVID-19 and still enjoy 

immunity from the disease. Employees must choose vaccination or termination. Or, as discussed 

below, employees who are “accommodated” for religious or health reasons may choose what will 

likely be several years of unpaid leave without benefits: effectively, termination.

28. This policy from United contrasts with the Federal Government’s recent 

announcement that the Department of Labor is developing a rule to require certain large employers 

to mandate vaccination or periodic testing for its employees. United is not offering the option of 

periodic testing, either in general or for employees who receive an accommodation.

29. This policy from United also differs substantially from the European Union’s 

digital COVID-19 certificate, which considers the following as equivalent: (1) a COVID-19 

vaccine; (2) a negative COVID-19 test; or (3) having previously recovered from COVID-19. See 

EU Digital COVID Certificate, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-worktravel-eu/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/eu-digital-covidcertificate_en.

30. When United announced the vaccine mandate, it stated that employees could 

request accommodations for religious or health reasons. See Daniella Genovese, United Airlines 

vaccine mandate driven by delta variant, hospitalization data, CEO Scott Kirby says,

FOXBUSINESS (Aug. 10, 2021), https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/united-ceo-scott-kirbypushed-vaccine-mandate-driven-by-hospitalization-data. This is in line with Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) guidance on private employers issuing such mandates. See 

What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 7 of 33 PageID 629
8

Laws §§ K.1 & K.2., EEOC (May 28, 2021), https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-knowabout-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws.

31. However, United’s CEO Mr. Kirby also threatened employees “to be very careful 

about” requesting such accommodations. Mr. Kirby stated that there would be very “few people 

that get through the medical and religious exemption process”—describing such employees 

derisively as “all [of a] sudden decid[ing] ‘I’m really religious.’” Mr. Kirby threatened those 

employees by stating that they are “putting [their] job[s] on the line” if they request such 

accommodations. See Decl. of Kimberly Hamilton, attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 

32. In addition to Mr. Kirby’s threats, United has placed substantial and unconscionable 

pressure on its employees. One of the many examples of such pressure, some of which are more 

specifically discussed below, occurred in early-September when United began sending postcards 

to all employees who had not yet provided proof of vaccination. 

33. The postcards stated that the employees had not uploaded evidence of vaccination 

and repeated in bold text: “Unvaccinated employees without a reasonable accommodation will be 

separated from United.” As these postcards were not sent in an envelope, United effectively 

broadcast its employees’ vaccination status to all who saw the postcards. 

34. According to United, this vaccination mandate is aimed at increased safety. See 

Leslie Josephs, United will require its U.S. employees to be vaccinated, a first for country’s major 

airlines, CNBC (Aug. 6, 2021), https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/06/united-airlines-vaccinemandate-employees.html. Yet United does not require any passenger flying on its planes, or 

interacting with its staff, to be vaccinated. See David Koenig, United Airlines will require US 

employees to be vaccinated, AP NEWS (Aug. 6, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/united-airlinesCase 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 8 of 33 PageID 630
9

vaccine-mandate-employees-frontier-e8eef8e8f11d4924b81768484e5401a1. Nor does it require 

its employees from other countries to be vaccinated, even though those employees work and come 

in contact with United crews from the United States. Id. The mandate does not apply to regional 

airline partners that fly United customers on shorter routes that feed United’s mainlines. See 

Josephs, supra ¶ 32. And the mandate does not apply to pilots from other airlines allowed to ride 

in the “jumpseat” of the aircraft (in the cockpit) with United flight officers. See Jumpseat 

Committee Update, UNITED MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (Sept. 16, 2021) 

https://contentsharing.net/actions/email_mobile_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=2940366754&m

essage_id=20802705&user_id=ALPA&jobid=53070823. And at the same time, United has 

relaxed requirements for flight attendants wearing gloves and eye protection during the COVID-19 

pandemic, and the company no longer ensures the “deep” cleaning of aircraft after each flight as 

it did at the outset of the pandemic.

C. Federal law prohibiting religious and disability discrimination and retaliation

35. Title VII prohibits United from discriminating against employees based on their 

religion. This “include[s] all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless 

an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee’s . . . 

religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s 

business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). 

36. In other words, “[a]n employer has the statutory obligation to make reasonable 

accommodations for the religious observances of its employees, but is not required to incur undue 

hardship.” Weber v. Roadway Express, 199 F.3d 270, 273 (5th Cir. 2000).

37. Title VII also prohibits United from retaliating against an employee for engaging 

in protected activity. See Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 319 (5th Cir. 2004).

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 9 of 33 PageID 631
10

38. Similarly, under the ADA, United may not “discriminate against a qualified 

individual on the basis of disability.” Caldwell v. KHOU-TV, 850 F.3d 237, 241 (5th Cir. 2017). 

39. Such discrimination includes “fail[ing] to make ‘reasonable accommodations to the 

known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . 

unless . . . the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.’” Feist v. Louisiana, 730 F.3d 

430, 432 (5th Cir. 2013).

40. Additionally, the ADA makes it unlawful to retaliate against an employee for 

seeking an accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). 

D. United’s accommodation request system

41. United created an online system through its Help Hub, which was the only formal 

mechanism United offered employees to request accommodations from United’s vaccine mandate.

42. Employees were given the option to request accommodations based on religious 

beliefs or medical reasons through United’s Reasonable Accommodation Process (“RAP”). 

43. Employees filling out the online form were not permitted to request both a religious 

and medical accommodation request.

44. United required all employees to submit requests for accommodation by August 

31, 2021.

45. After that date, employees were not permitted to submit accommodation requests

to United through the RAP. In fact, religious requests received after August 31, 2021, were 

automatically denied as untimely.

46. In other words, any employee who determines that he or she has a religious basis 

for not receiving the vaccine after August 31, 2021, is left without a mechanism for requesting an 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 10 of 33 PageID 632
11

accommodation from United that the company will countenance. Such employees must either 

receive the vaccine or be terminated.

E. United’s responses to accommodation requests

47. Once employees began submitting RAP requests, United followed up with those 

individuals to determine the legitimacy of either the religious belief or medical condition requiring 

an accommodation. For instance, the company asked questions geared to probe and manipulate

the beliefs of religious accommodation seekers, including: “Are you aware if any vaccines or 

medications you have previously received were created, researched, tested or otherwise involved 

the use of stem cells,” and if so, “please explain why receiving such vaccines or medications were 

not a violation of your sincerely held belief.” Also, United asked: “What about your religious 

belief prevents you from getting the COVID vaccines, but not taking other types of medicine;” 

“Have you received vaccinations in the past;” and “Do you currently take or have you taken 

medications of any kind (over the counter or prescription)?” 

48. United also asked individuals (on a short 3-day timeline) for pastoral or third-party 

letters attesting to the employees’ beliefs. The requirement for a pastoral letter as substantiation 

for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs was implemented by United early in the review 

process. This was later replaced by the requirement for a letter to be provided by a third-party who 

could attest to an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs. 

49. United failed to equally apply standards for determining accommodation approval. 

For those seeking medical accommodations, some applicants were requested to provide additional 

information, such as medical certifications, while others were not. Similarly, for those seeking 

religious accommodations, some applicants were asked to provide additional information, such as 

a pastoral letter, while others were not. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 11 of 33 PageID 633
12

50. Where United requested additional information, it required employees to respond 

in unreasonable timeframes. United’s online portal, Help Hub, oftentimes did not alert employees 

when additional information was requested. In fact, employees stopped receiving email 

notifications when updates were available, causing some employees to miss United’s artificially

imposed deadlines for providing additional requested information.

51. Once any questions were answered and any requested documents were submitted, 

there was no further interaction between United and the employees. The company did not ask for 

or suggest that there would be any possible accommodation to the vaccine mandate issued on 

August 6, 2021.

52. On September 9, 2021, United began “granting” requests for accommodation,

announcing that for any accommodation request it grants, the employee will be placed on indefinite 

unpaid leave starting October 2, 2021, with no company-paid benefits. See Ailsa Chang, et al., 

United Airlines CEO On the Decision To Put Unvaccinated Employees On Leave In October, NPR 

(Sept. 10, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1036039856/united-airlines-ceo-on-thedecision-to-put-unvaccinated-employees-on-leave-in-oc. Other requests for accommodation were 

denied as being either untimely under United’s self-imposed August 31, 2021 submission deadline

or due to other arbitrary reasons, such as an employee’s failure to respond within 3 or 5 days to 

requests for substantiation of religious beliefs.

53. This caused many employees to rescind their accommodation requests out of a fear 

of lost income. 

54. For customer-facing employees (including pilots, flight attendants, and some 

customer service representatives), the unpaid leave will last “until the risk of COVID is low enough 

that [United] deem[s] it safe” or until the pandemic “meaningfully” subsides. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 12 of 33 PageID 634
13

55. For non-customer-facing employees (including aircraft technicians and other 

service representatives), the unpaid leave is set to last “for some period of time while [United] 

work[s] out all the details [and] the logistics” of mitigation measures, which United stated may or 

may not include testing requirements and requiring unvaccinated employees to wear vaccine 

identification badges. See Chang, et al., supra ¶ 50.

56. In announcing these rules, United ignored the interactive process. United did not 

explain why one group of employees may be able to come back to work with mitigation measures 

in place, while another group will not be able to do so. United did not explain why pilots and flight 

attendants are grouped together, despite having significantly different customer interactions. The 

same is true of other types of customer service representatives who may be working remotely or 

behind plexiglass shields in an airport. United did not explain why employees in non-customerfacing positions are at less risk of infection despite still interacting with other employees. United 

did not explain why its distinctions did not include any consideration for employees who have 

previously recovered from COVID-19 and therefore possess antibodies that may provide them 

with protection against future COVID-19 infection at rates similar to (or greater than) vaccination. 

United further failed to explain why it would allow pilots from other airlines to ride in the cockpit 

with United flight officers even though those other pilots would not be required to have a 

COVID-19 vaccination. Nor did United explain why its non-U.S. employees are not required to 

be vaccinated, even though crew members from outside the U.S. will often work together on flights 

with U.S. crew members. The same is true for the regional aircrews that fly shorter routes for 

United. What United did do was rely on arbitrary line-drawing rather than engaging in the 

interactive process with each employee who requested an accommodation. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 13 of 33 PageID 635
14

57. United has not provided any “accommodated” employee with a date by which he 

or she will be able to return to work. 

58. Rather, United stated that this period of unpaid leave may last up to 72 months (i.e., 

up to 6 years).

59. United informed “accommodated” employees that, while on unpaid leave, some 

may lose company seniority and travel benefits, they may not use accrued sick leave or vacation 

time, they do not accrue any sick leave or vacation time, and they must pay their own medical 

insurance premiums—both the employee’s share and United’s usual share. Since then, some 

receiving a medical accommodation have been verbally informed that they may be able to use their 

own earned sick time pay to offset the loss of income from working their job.

60. Any employee whose accommodation request was denied must receive the vaccine 

by September 27, 2021, or be terminated.

F. Plaintiffs’ accommodation requests

61. Plaintiff Sambrano is a Captain with United, where he has worked in varying 

capacities for approximately 31 years.

62. As a Captain, Mr. Sambrano is responsible for piloting and commanding aircraft.

63. In addition to being a Captain, Plaintiff Sambrano has been in training to be a line 

check airman, which is an instructor of pilots.

64. On August 26, 2021, Plaintiff Sambrano submitted a request for a religious 

accommodation through United’s online accommodation request portal, Help Hub.

65. In his accommodation request, Mr. Sambrano explained his belief that the 

COVID-19 vaccines were developed using aborted fetal tissue and that it is sinful to use anything 

derived from abortion. Mr. Sambrano also explained that he believed receiving the vaccine runs 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 14 of 33 PageID 636
15

contrary to the Bible’s teachings about his body being a temple of the Holy Spirit. As an adult, 

Mr. Sambrano regularly elects not to receive vaccines due to his religious beliefs. 

66. Mr. Sambrano also attempted to request a medical accommodation because he 

previously contracted and recovered from COVID-19 and thus likely possesses antibodies against 

COVID-19. In light of the likelihood that he possesses antibodies, Mr. Sambrano is concerned 

about the risk posed by receiving a vaccine which itself aims to create antibodies. 

67. Mr. Sambrano was unable to submit a request for a medical accommodation 

because United’s accommodation request portal, Help Hub, permitted an employee to request only 

one type of accommodation. 

68. Mr. Sambrano did not receive any contact from United to discuss his request or 

possible accommodations. 

69. On September 9, 2021, United informed Mr. Sambrano that his religious 

accommodation request was “granted,” but that he would be “accommodated” by being placed on 

indefinite unpaid leave. 

70. Being placed on unpaid leave will impact Mr. Sambrano personally and 

professionally. For instance, he will lose the ability to participate in and be protected by the 

long-term disability program that exclusively covers pilots. He will also lose his medical, dental, 

and prescription drug benefits, as well as his ability to retire in good standing and receive company 

travel and life insurance benefits. 

71. Extended unpaid leave will also require Mr. Sambrano to make difficult choices 

regarding the college education for his children, one of whom is currently in college and two of 

whom will be starting college soon. Additionally, the loss of profit sharing and company matched 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 15 of 33 PageID 637
16

retirement contributions along with the loss of a regular income will require Mr. Sambrano’s

family to make other decisions about daily activities.

72. Mr. Sambrano submitted a charge to the EEOC on September 19, 2021, regarding 

United’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions. 

73. Plaintiff David Castillo is an Aircraft Technician with United. He has worked for 

United for 22 years. 

74. In that position, Mr. Castillo is responsible for performing mechanic duties on 

United airplanes. 

75. On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff Castillo submitted a request for a religious and 

medical accommodation through an email to his supervisor. He was unable to submit these 

accommodation requests through United’s accommodation request portal, Help Hub, because 

United had determined that it would not accept accommodation requests through that portal after 

August 31, 2021. 

76. In his accommodation request, Mr. Castillo explained his belief that the COVID-19 

vaccines were developed using aborted fetal tissue and that it is sinful to use anything derived from 

abortion. As an adult, Mr. Castillo does not receive vaccines due to his religious beliefs. 

77. Mr. Castillo also requested a medical accommodation because he previously 

contracted and recovered from COVID-19 and thus likely possesses antibodies against COVID-19. 

In light of the likelihood that he possesses antibodies, Mr. Castillo is concerned about the risk 

posed by receiving a vaccine which itself aims to create antibodies. 

78. On Saturday, September 18, 2021, a representative from United’s Human 

Resources (“HR”) department contacted Mr. Castillo’s supervisor, informing him that the religious 

accommodation was untimely and would therefore be ignored. At the same time, HR instructed 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 16 of 33 PageID 638
17

the supervisor to inform Mr. Castillo that he could submit a request for a medical accommodation

through United’s online Help Hub system. Mr. Castillo submitted that request on September 19, 

2021, and it is now pending. Assuming that Mr. Castillo’s medical request is granted, he will 

presumably receive the same offer that others in his position have received: unpaid leave for an 

indefinite period of time.

79. If placed on unpaid leave, Mr. Castillo will lose his travel benefits, medical, dental, 

and prescription drug coverage, as well as profit sharing, company matched retirement 

contributions, and loss of his only income source. He is dependent on that income stream, and he 

does not have any savings on which to rely. If placed on unpaid leave, Mr. Castillo will be unable 

to afford his housing or his car. Unable to renew his lease without employment, he will become 

homeless on October 1, 2021.

80. As a diabetic with high blood pressure, Mr. Castillo also depends on the insurance 

coverage he has through his job at United. If placed on indefinite unpaid leave, Mr. Castillo will 

not be able to afford his medical coverage, putting his health at serious risk. 

81. Mr. Castillo submitted a charge to the EEOC on September 20, 2021, regarding 

United’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions.

82. Plaintiff Kimberly Hamilton is a Station Operations Representative with United. 

She has worked for United for 18 years. 

83. In that role, Ms. Hamilton works in an office setting, handling gate planning and 

coordinating fueling, mechanics, cleaners, caterers, and other staff matters. 

84. On August 26, 2021, Ms. Hamilton submitted a religious accommodation request 

through United’s online accommodation request portal, Help Hub. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 17 of 33 PageID 639
18

85. Ms. Hamilton explained that, as a devout Catholic, she cannot abide by any process 

that relates to or uses aborted cells. This includes receiving vaccines that she believes were derived 

using aborted fetal tissue. Ms. Hamilton also explained that she believes receiving the vaccine is 

contrary to the Bible’s teaching that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

86. On September 5, 2021, United responded by asking Ms. Hamilton to produce a 

letter from a third-party supporting her religious views. Ms. Hamilton’s husband provided this 

letter.

87. Ms. Hamilton did not receive any other contact from United to discuss the request 

or possible accommodations. 

88. On September 9, 2021, United informed Ms. Hamilton that her religious 

accommodation request was “APPROVED,” but that she would be “accommodated” by being 

placed on indefinite unpaid leave without her regular benefits. 

89. Being placed onto unpaid leave will impact Ms. Hamilton personally and 

professionally. Ms. Hamilton and her family depend on her regular income from United. Ms. 

Hamilton’s husband is currently undergoing cancer treatment, which they will be unable to afford 

if she is placed on unpaid leave, where she must also pay for her insurance coverage.

90. The threat of being placed on unpaid leave has caused Ms. Hamilton significant 

stress. This has been exacerbated as the mandate and United’s actions are impacting present 

decisions regarding what types of cancer treatment Ms. Hamilton’s family might be able to afford 

for her husband if her benefits at United are lost through the current “accommodation” being 

offered.

91. Ms. Hamilton submitted a charge to the EEOC on September 20, 2021, regarding 

United’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions.

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 18 of 33 PageID 640
19

92. Plaintiff Jonas is a Customer Service Representative assigned to the United Club. 

She has worked for United (or Continental Airlines, before United acquired Continental) since 

1984.

93. As a United Club Representative, Ms. Jonas is responsible for working in the club 

lounge, verifying credentials, selling memberships, discussing amenities with clients, and assisting 

clients with flight issues and upgrades. 

94. On August 29, 2021, Ms. Jonas requested a medical accommodation through 

United’s online accommodation request system, Help Hub. 

95. In her request, Ms. Jonas explained that she was concerned with the safety of the 

vaccine for her. She has severe reactions to various allergens, including eggs and penicillin

updated that request on September 14, 2021, with a form filled out by her doctor. 

96. Ms. Jonas also contracted and recovered from COVID-19 in August of 2021, and 

was concerned about the risk posed by receiving a vaccine which aims to create antibodies. One 

recent test did not confirm the presence of antibodies for COVID-19, but Ms. Jonas plans to test 

again in the near future to confirm those results. 

97. Ms. Jonas also wanted to submit a request for a religious accommodation but was 

unable to do so because United’s accommodation request portal, Help Hub, permitted an employee 

to request only one type of accommodation.

98. Ms. Jonas did not receive any contact from United to discuss the request or possible 

accommodations. 

99. On September 15, 2021, United informed Ms. Jonas that her medical

accommodation request was “approved,” but that she would be accommodated by being placed on 

indefinite medical leave that would lead to the loss of both her pay and her regular benefits. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 19 of 33 PageID 641
20

100. Being placed onto medical leave will impact Ms. Jonas personally and 

professionally. Ms. Jonas’ family depends on her regular salary and has no other income source. 

Once her sick pay is depleted, Ms. Jonas will not be able to afford medical care for her family, 

which will have an immediate negative impact on her husband, who is disabled. Additionally, Ms. 

Jonas’ family will be unable to pay their bills and she will lose additional money she could be 

earning from the pension she gained while working at Continental. United’s response and threat 

of extended unpaid leave has also caused Ms. Jonas significant stress.

101. Ms. Jonas submitted a charge to the EEOC on September 20, 2021, regarding 

United’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions.

102. Plaintiff Genise Kincannon is a Flight Attendant for United. Ms. Kincannon has 

worked for United for 31 years. 

103. As a Flight Attendant, Ms. Kincannon’s responsibilities include helping customers 

find their seats, serving drinks and food, explaining safety protocols, and handling any 

emergencies that arise. 

104. On August 18, 2021, Ms. Kincannon submitted a religious accommodation request 

through United’s online accommodation request system, Help Hub. 

105. In her accommodation request, Ms. Kincannon explained her belief that the 

COVID-19 vaccines were developed using aborted fetal tissue and that it is sinful to use anything 

derived from abortion. Throughout her adult life, Ms. Kincannon has elected not to receive 

vaccines due to her religious beliefs. 

106. Ms. Kincannon also has a medical basis for seeking an accommodation, which has 

not yet been submitted because Help Hub only permitted employees to submit one accommodation 

request. Ms. Kincannon previously contracted and recovered from COVID-19 and thus likely 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 20 of 33 PageID 642
21

possesses antibodies against COVID-19. In light of the likelihood that she possesses antibodies, 

Ms. Kincannon is concerned about the risk posed by receiving a vaccine which itself aims to create 

antibodies. 

107. After she submitted her request, Ms. Kincannon did not receive any contact from 

United to discuss the request or possible accommodations, other than boilerplate questions 

challenging her religious beliefs and requesting a letter from someone else to verify those beliefs. 

108. On September 9, 2021, United informed Ms. Kincannon that her religious 

accommodation request was “granted,” but that she would be “accommodated” by being placed 

on indefinite unpaid leave without her regular benefits. 

109. The loss of regular income from United will cause Ms. Kincannon personal and 

professional harm. The loss of income will inflict immediate harms on her family’s daily lives—

affecting transportation, housing, and other financial decisions. The prospect of being placed on 

unpaid leave has also caused and continues to cause significant daily stress in Ms. Kincannon’s 

marriage. 

110. Ms. Kincannon submitted a charge to the EEOC on September 17, 2021, regarding 

United’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions.

111. Plaintiff Seth Turnbough is a Captain with United and is based in Chicago. He 

has been with United for 16 years and flies through DFW for work. He also uses his “ride share” 

passes to fly into DFW regularly to visit his local family—a benefit that is terminated under 

United’s recent mandate for those not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, whether or not an 

“accommodation” is granted. So long as this benefit is not terminated, Mr. Turnbough plans to 

continue using his ride share passes to fly into DFW.

112. As a Captain, Mr. Turnbough is responsible for commanding and flying an aircraft. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 21 of 33 PageID 643
22

113. On August 6, 2021, Mr. Turnbough submitted a medical accommodation request 

through United’s online accommodation request system. 

114. Mr. Turnbough has relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis (“MS”) and his 

neurologist has recommended against Mr. Turnbough receiving the COVID-19 vaccine due to a 

concern that it might trigger a “cytokine storm”—a condition where an individual’s immune 

system is over-stimulated and begins attacking healthy tissue and organs. Additionally, Mr. 

Turnbough’s physician is concerned about the risk of blood-clotting, which is already an elevated 

concern for all pilots. 

115. United did not discuss possible accommodations with Mr. Turnbough. 

116. On September 10, 2021, United informed Mr. Turnbough that his accommodation 

request was “granted,” but that he would be “accommodated” by being placed on indefinite unpaid 

leave. 

117. Being placed on unpaid leave will significantly affect Mr. Turnbough personally 

and professionally. In addition to the financial loss, Mr. Turnbough will be unable to participate 

in and be protected by the long-term disability program that exclusively covers pilots. He will also 

lose his medical, dental, and prescription drug benefits, as well as his ability to retire in good 

standing. He will no longer have access to company travel and life insurance benefits, and will be 

unable to participate in company profit sharing and company matched retirement contributions. 

Additionally, the threat of being placed on unpaid leave has caused Mr. Turnbough substantial 

stress, which increases his risk of an MS relapse. 

118. Mr. Turnbough submitted a charge to the EEOC on September 20, 2021, regarding 

United’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions.

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 22 of 33 PageID 644
23

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

119. Plaintiffs bring this class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) 

and (b).

120. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all United employees who 

have requested or will request accommodations from United’s vaccine mandate and who have had 

those accommodation requests either formally or effectively denied and are thus faced with the 

decision of either taking a vaccine to which they object, or suffering termination, including the 

functional equivalent of termination: indefinite unpaid leave.

121. Plaintiffs anticipate that they will ultimately seek three subclasses when they move 

for class certification: (1) employees who have sought either a religious or medical accommodation 

and previously recovered from COVID-19, possess antibodies against COVID-19, and are willing 

to produce periodic proof to United showing that they remain antibody positive; (2) employees 

who sought religious accommodations, lack COVID-19 antibodies, and are willing to submit to 

mitigation measures such as periodic COVID-19 testing and/or wearing masks; and (3) employees 

who sought medical accommodations, lack COVID-19 antibodies, and are willing to submit to 

mitigation measures like periodic COVID-19 testing and/or wearing masks. There may also be 

separate subclasses for employees who are “customer facing” and those who are “non-customer 

facing.”

122. By effectively treating all accommodation requesters the same, United’s actions are 

generally applicable to the entire class of United employees for whom United failed to grant 

reasonable accommodations. Accordingly, the Court may grant relief to the entire affected class 

to prevent United’s continue violation of federal civil rights laws. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 23 of 33 PageID 645
24

123. Additionally, the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 

While the exact class size is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, it is expected to exceed 2,000 

employees. The precise number and identification of the class members will be ascertainable from 

United’s records during discovery.

124. There are questions of law and fact common to all members of the class. Those 

common questions include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Did United provide its employees with an adequate mechanism for 

requesting an accommodation when it required requests to be submitted by 

an arbitrary date (August 31, 2021) and prevented employees from 

requesting accommodations for both religious and medical reasons?

b. Did United comply with its obligations under federal law to engage in the 

interactive process when responding to each accommodation request?

c. Did United comply with its obligations under federal law to reasonably 

accommodate employees with religious or medical objections to the vaccine 

mandate when the only accommodation offered was indefinite unpaid 

leave? 

d. Did United comply with federal law when it denied accommodation 

requests?

e. Did United retaliate against employees who engaged in protected activity 

when it responded to each request by formally or effectively terminating 

their employment or by engaging in coercive conduct to dissuade 

employees from requesting (or continuing to seek) an accommodation?

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 24 of 33 PageID 646
25

125. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class because they, like the class 

members, requested accommodations from United’s vaccine mandate and United formally or 

effectively denied those requests without engaging in the interactive process. 

126. For the same reason, Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

class.

127. The questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over 

any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available 

methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating Plaintiffs’ claims. Joinder of all members is 

impracticable. 

COUNT I

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

128. Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

129. Plaintiffs Sambrano, Castillo, Hamilton, Jonas, and Kincannon hold sincere 

religious beliefs that preclude them from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. 

130. Plaintiffs Sambrano, Castillo, Hamilton, Jonas, and Kincannon informed United of 

those beliefs and requested (or wanted to request) religious accommodations from the vaccine 

mandate.

131. United refused to engage in the interactive process with Plaintiffs regarding their 

religious accommodation requests and instead only responded to Plaintiffs with questions designed 

to deter Plaintiffs from exercising their religious beliefs. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 25 of 33 PageID 647
26

132. Irrespective of the interactive process, United failed to provide Plaintiffs with 

reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs, as indefinite unpaid leave is not a 

reasonable accommodation. Instead, indefinite unpaid leave is an adverse employment action. 

133. United thereby discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their religious beliefs.

134. United’s failure to provide religious accommodations has harmed and will continue 

to harm Plaintiffs.

135. By failing to engage in the interactive process or offer any reasonable 

accommodation, United’s discriminatory actions were intentional and/or reckless and in violation 

of Title VII.

136. Plaintiffs have filed charges with the EEOC complaining of these discriminatory 

actions. Although Plaintiffs’ EEOC charges remain pending, this Court may exercise its equity 

jurisdiction to grant preliminary injunctive relief to preserve the status quo pending completion of 

the EEOC’s administrative process. See Drew v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 480 F.2d 69, 74 (5th Cir. 

1973).

COUNT II

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

137. Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

138. Plaintiffs Sambrano, Castillo, Hamilton, Jonas, and Kincannon engaged in 

protected activity when they requested (or wanted to request) religious accommodations from 

United’s vaccine mandate. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 26 of 33 PageID 648
27

139. United responded almost immediately by announcing that it would formally or 

effectively terminating their employment. This was so even though United has conceded that 

many of the requests for religious accommodation are legitimate by “granting” those requests.

140. United’s response to Plaintiffs’ protected activity with a draconian threat of years 

of unpaid leave is an adverse employment action intended to force employees to forgo their 

religious beliefs and receive the COVID-19 vaccine. When its improper questioning of the 

employees’ religious beliefs failed, United chose to retaliate by giving the employees the false 

choice between vaccination and effective termination.

141. Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and protected activity were the causes of United’s 

adverse employment action. Indeed, United’s derisive view of employees with religious beliefs 

has been documented. Moreover, United’s disparate treatment of religious accommodation 

requests—arbitrarily cutting off the deadline for submitting religious accommodations, while 

potentially still accepting requests for medical accommodation (even though the end result is 

basically the same)—only confirms United’s hostility to requests for religious accommodation. 

United did not bother engaging in an interactive process with accommodation seekers because it 

never intended to provide them with a reasonable accommodation.

142. By retaliating against Plaintiffs for engaging in protected activity, United has 

violated Title VII. This violation has harmed and continues to harm Plaintiffs. 

143. Plaintiffs have filed charges with the EEOC complaining of these retaliatory 

actions. This Court may exercise its equity jurisdiction to grant preliminary injunctive relief to 

preserve the status quo pending completion of the EEOC’s administrative process. See Drew, 480 

F.2d at 74.

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 27 of 33 PageID 649
28

COUNT III

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

144. Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

145. Plaintiffs Sambrano, Castillo, Jonas, Kincannon, and Turnbough informed United 

of their disabilities.

146. Plaintiffs Sambrano, Castillo, Jonas, Kincannon, and Turnbough requested (or 

wanted to request) reasonable medical accommodations from United’s vaccine mandate for their 

disabilities.

147. United refused to engage in the interactive process with Plaintiffs regarding their 

medical accommodation requests. 

148. United violated the ADA when it denied or effectively denied Plaintiffs’ 

accommodation requests.

149. Where United offered indefinite unpaid leave as an accommodation, it failed to 

provide a reasonable accommodation. 

150. United thereby discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their disabilities. 

151. United’s failure to provide medical accommodations has harmed and continues to 

harm Plaintiffs.

152. By failing to engage in the interactive process or offer any reasonable 

accommodation, United’s discriminatory actions were intentional and/or reckless, and in violation 

of the ADA.

153. Plaintiffs have filed charges with the EEOC complaining of these discriminatory 

actions. This Court may exercise its equity jurisdiction to grant preliminary injunctive relief to 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 28 of 33 PageID 650
29

preserve the status quo pending completion of the EEOC’s administrative process. See Drew, 

480 F.2d at 74; Baily v. Dallas Cnty. Sch., No. 3:16-cv-1642-M, 2016 WL 7638146, at *2 n.4

(N.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2016) (“Exhaustion of administrative remedies in the ADA context is similarly 

a condition precedent rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.”).

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

154. Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

155. Plaintiffs Sambrano, Castillo, Jonas, Kincannon, and Turnbough engaged in 

protected activity when they requested (or wanted to request) medical accommodations from 

United’s vaccine mandate. 

156. United responded by taking an adverse employment action against each employee 

when it announced that it would formally or effectively terminated their employment. This was 

so even though United has conceded that many of the requests for medical accommodations are 

legitimate by “granting” those requests.

157. United’s response to Plaintiffs’ protected activity with a draconian threat of years 

of unpaid leave is an adverse employment action intended to force employees to forgo their 

medical reasons for not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

158. Plaintiffs’ medical disability and protected activity were the causes of United’s 

adverse employment action. As discussed above, United’s derisive view of employees with 

disabilities has been documented.

159. By retaliating against Plaintiffs for engaging in protected activity, United has 

violated the ADA. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 29 of 33 PageID 651
30

160. Plaintiffs have filed charges with the EEOC complaining of these retaliatory 

actions. This Court may exercise its equity jurisdiction to grant preliminary injunctive relief to 

preserve the status quo pending completion of the EEOC’s administrative process. See Drew, 480 

F.2d at 74; Baily, 2016 WL 7638146, at *2 n.4.

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 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 30 of 33 PageID 652
31

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.

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 31 of 33 PageID 653
32

October 12, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John C. Sullivan

John C. Sullivan

Texas Bar No. 24083920

john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com

S|L LAW PLLC

610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000

Cedar Hill, TX 75104

Telephone: (469) 523-1351

/s/ Robert c. Wiegand

Robert C. Wiegand

Texas Bar No. 00791924

bob.wiegand@swolegal.com

Melissa J. Swindle

Texas Bar No. 24013600

Melissa.swindle@swolegal.com 

Stewart Wiegand & Owens PC

325 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 3750

Dallas, TX 75201

Telephone: (469) 899-9800

Facsimile: (469) 899-9810 

/s/ Mark R. Paoletta

Mark R. Paoletta* 

D.C. Bar No. 422746

mpaoletta@schaerr-jaffe.com

Gene C. Schaerr* 

D.C. Bar No. 416368

Brian J. Field* 

D.C. Bar No. 985577

Kenneth A. Klukowski* 

D.C. Bar No. 1046093

Annika M. Boone* 

Utah Bar No. 17176

SCHAERR |JAFFE LLP

1717 K Street NW, Suite 900

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 787-1060

Facsimile: (202) 776-0136

* Pro hac vice motions forthcoming

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 

Proposed Class

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 32 of 33 PageID 654
33

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via the Court’s electronic filing 

system upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Robert C. Wiegand

Robert C. Wiegand

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 67 Filed 10/12/21 Page 33 of 33 PageID 655