UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

DAVID SAMBRANO, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No.: 4:21-cv-01074-P

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S ADVICE TO THE COURT

On October 15, 2021, Defendant United Airlines, Inc. (“United”) notified the Court that 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied a motion for a temporary restraining 

order in Barrington v. United Airlines, No. 1:21-cv-02602 (D. Colo.). See Def.’s Advice to the 

Court (ECF No. 69). Presumably, United believes that the Barrington decision supports its 

arguments before this Court. Instead, United has unwittingly confirmed the need for preliminary 

injunctive relief in this case. 

Indeed, Barrington differs from this case in a material way. In Barrington, “[n]either 

party ... cited to case law addressing whether temporary, but indefinite, unpaid leave constitutes a 

reasonable accommodation under Title VII.” Order at 7, Barrington, No. 1:21-cv-02602 (D. Colo. 

Oct. 14, 2021) (ECF No. 23) (“Barrington Order”). Not so here. Plaintiffs have identified 

extensive case law showing that temporary unpaid leave is not a reasonable accommodation. See

Memo. in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 10-11 (ECF No. 6) (“PI Mot.”); Pls.’ Trial Br. at 4-5 

(ECF No. 37). In fact, far from being “a reasonable accommodation,” unrequested unpaid leave 

is an adverse employment action. See, e.g., Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 74 Filed 10/18/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID 703
2

53, 72 (2006) (holding that 37 days of unpaid leave, even when later reimbursed, constituted an 

adverse employment action); Love v. City of Dallas, No. 3:96-cv-0532-R, 1997 WL 278126, at *6 

(N.D. Tex. May 14, 1997) (noting that unpaid leave is effectively termination). 

Although Plaintiffs have identified this authority several times, United has yet to explain 

how unpaid leave can be both an adverse employment action and a reasonable accommodation. 

Of course, it cannot be. And the few cases discussing unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation 

differ substantially from this case—they involve employees requesting unpaid leave to avoid 

termination. See PI Mot. at 12 n.3. Had the Barrington plaintiff identified this authority, Plaintiffs 

are confident that the Barrington court would have concluded that United’s “accommodation” is 

really no accommodation at all. By pointing to the Barrington decision, United inadvertently 

highlights this key fact, which demonstrates why the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a 

preliminary injunction. 

Further, the Barrington court did not address a key irreparable harm that Plaintiffs 

identified here—unpaid leave will remove Plaintiffs (and similarly situated United employees) 

from the seniority system. As Kirk Limacher testified at the recent evidentiary hearing, United 

would not be able to return “accommodated” employees to their places in seniority upon return. 

More importantly, while on unpaid leave, the “accommodated” employees will be unable to bid 

for jobs, schedules, locations, etc. As Plaintiffs demonstrated, those lost bidding opportunities 

cannot be undone—they are lost forever, and they will have negative impacts on each Plaintiff’s 

job going forward. 

This case differs from Barrington in one additional way. One accommodation that the 

Barrington plaintiff requested was transfer to another position. See Barrington Order at 9. The 

Barrington court noted that employers are “not obligated to relocate Plaintiff within the company 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 74 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID 704
3

in order to comply with Title VII.” Id. In this case, Plaintiffs have not requested transfer to other 

positions. They merely ask the Court to prevent United from placing them on indefinite unpaid 

leave. As Plaintiffs demonstrated at the recent evidentiary hearing, there are ample 

accommodations available that impose little to no cost—for example, periodic testing or symptom 

screening. Barrington’s discussion of transfer is entirely irrelevant here. 

In short, the Barrington decision highlighted a key gap in that case—any authority showing 

that unrequested unpaid leave can be a reasonable accommodation. In contrast, Plaintiffs have 

demonstrated that unpaid leave cannot be a reasonable accommodation, and that United has 

multiple reasonable options that it could provide at minimal if any incremental cost. Accordingly, 

this case differs substantially from Barrington. Indeed, that decision’s logic supports entry of a 

preliminary injunction here. 

October 18, 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

Facsimile: (469) 613-0891

/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 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 74 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID 705
4

/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

Joshua J. Prince*

D.C. Bar No. 1685532

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

* Admitted pro hac vice 

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 

Proposed Class

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 74 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID 706
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 74 Filed 10/18/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID 707