-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mary Jo O’Neill, AZ Bar #005924 

James P. Driscoll-MacEachron, AZ Bar #027828 

Michael Baskind, AZ Bar #030810 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, Phoenix District Office 

3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 690 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Telephone: (602) 640-5003 

Fax: (602) 640-5009 

Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov

 james.driscoll-maceachron@eeoc.gov

 michael.baskind@eeoc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and 

ENVOY AIR INC., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT 

(JURY TRIAL DEMAND) 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and 

Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“ADA”) to correct unlawful employment 

practices on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to Darla Alvarado, 

Janet Reyes, Sherrie Edwards-Redd, Vicki Groves, Wanda Villanueva, Chrissie L. Ball, 

Jodi Isenberg, Lisa Walker, Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya Howard, Tanya 

Merriweather, and other aggrieved individuals who were adversely affected by the 

unlawful employment practices. As alleged with greater particularity below, Defendants 

engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the ADA by refusing to accommodate 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 10
-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

employees with disabilities, terminating employees with disabilities, and failing to rehire 

employees. Defendants’ actions followed from a 100% return-to-work policy that 

requires employees to return to work without restrictions. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 

1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) 

of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) 

and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) & 

§ 2000e-6. 

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within 

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 

PARTIES 

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the agency 

of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and 

enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by 

Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference 

Sections 706(f)(1) and (3), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 

4. At all relevant times, Defendants American Airlines, Inc. and Envoy Air 

Inc. (“Defendants”) are Texas corporations, have continuously been doing business in 

the State of Arizona, and have continuously had at least 15 employees. 

5. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers 

engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 

U.S.C.§ 12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which 

incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) 

and (h). 

6. At all relevant times, Defendants have been covered entities under Section 

101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2). 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 10
-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Darla 

Alvarado, Janet Reyes, Sherrie Edwards-Redd, Vicki Groves, Wanda Villanueva, 

Chrissie L. Ball, Jodi Isenberg, Lisa Walker, Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya 

Howard, and Tanya Merriweather (collectively “Charging Parties”) filed charges of 

discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendants. 

8. Charging Parties and a class of employees and former employees have 

disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), and are qualified 

individuals with disabilities under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12111(8), and have sought 

reasonable accommodations, including reassignment, from Defendants related to their 

disabilities. 

9. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been 

fulfilled. 

10. Since at least January 1, 2009, Defendants have engaged in unlawful 

employment practices in violation of Sections 102(a), 102(b)(3), 102(b)(5)(A), 

102(b)(5)(B), 102(b)(6) and 503 of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), 

(b)(5)(A), (b)(5)(B), and 12203. 

11. At all relevant times, Defendants have had a 100% return-to-work policy 

that requires employees to return to work without restrictions. 

12. At all relevant times, Defendants have had have a policy that requires 

employees who are no longer able to do their job without reasonable accommodation to 

find other jobs, apply for other jobs, to compete for other jobs without regard to 

reassignment as a reasonable accommodation. 

13. The Charging Parties and other aggrieved individuals have disabilities 

within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), including, for example: 

a. Lupus; 

b. Cancer; 

c. A stroke; 

d. A knee injury requiring several surgeries; 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 3 of 10
-4- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e. A back injury; 

f. Asthma; and 

g. A condition requiring significant abdominal surgery. 

14. The Charging Parties and other aggrieved individuals are qualified 

individuals with disabilities under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12111(8), in that they could 

perform the duties of their jobs with or without reasonable accommodation, including, 

where necessary, reassignment. 

15. Defendants did not provide reasonable accommodations to the Charging 

Parties and other aggrieved individuals. For example, 

a. Defendants did not provide intermittent leave as an accommodation; 

b. Defendants did not provide a stool behind the ticket counter to 

accommodate an employee with a standing restriction; 

c. Defendants told Charging Parties including Ball, Groves, Hill, Howard, 

Merriweather, and Villanueva as well as other aggrieved individuals that 

they could not return to work until they had no restrictions related to their 

injuries and/or disabilities; 

d. Defendants required Charging Parties including Edwards-Reed, Isenberg, 

Walker, Howard, and Ball as well as other aggrieved individuals to apply 

for and compete for vacant position instead of considering reassignment as 

a reasonable accommodation 

16. Defendants terminated Charging Parties including Janet Reyes, Sherrie 

Edwards-Redd, Jodi Isenberg, Lisa Walker, Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya 

Howard, Tanya Merriweather and other aggrieved individuals or placed them on unpaid 

leave. 

17. Defendants also refused to rehire Charging Parties including Janet Reyes, 

Sherrie Edwards-Redd, Jodi Isenberg, Lisa Walker, Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya 

Howard, Tanya Merriweather, as well as other aggrieved individuals because of their 

disabilities and/or because Defendants regarded them as disabled. 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 4 of 10
-5- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18. Defendants refused to allow Charging Parties including Darla Alvarado, 

Janet Reyes, Sherrie Edwards-Redd, Vicki Groves, Wanda Villanueva, Chrissie L. Ball, 

Jodi Isenberg, Lisa Walker, Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya Howard, and Tanya 

Merriweather, as well as other aggrieved individuals to transfer. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Pattern or Practice of Failing to Accommodate Employees 

(42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and (b)(5)(A)) 

19. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby 

incorporated by reference. 

20. Defendants maintained a 100% return to work policy that required 

employees to return to work without restrictions. 

21. The Charging Parties and the other aggrieved individuals for whom the 

EEOC seeks relief are disabled as defined in the ADA. 

22. The Charging Parties and the other aggrieved individuals for whom the 

EEOC seeks relief were able, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the 

essential functions of their positions at Defendants or could have performed the essential 

functions of a position obtained through reassignment. 

23. Defendants failed and refused to provide any accommodation, including 

but not limited to reassignment to the Charging Parties and the other aggrieved 

individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief. 

24. Defendants failed and refused to engage in good faith discussions with the 

Charging Parties and the other aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief to 

determine appropriate accommodation. 

25. Defendants failed to provide the Charging Parties and the other aggrieved 

individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief any reasonable accommodation, as required 

under Section 102(b)(5)(A) of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). 

26. Defendants’ failure to provide the Charging Parties and the other 

aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief with any reasonable 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 5 of 10
-6- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

accommodation was intentional. 

27. Defendants’ failure to provide the Charging Parties and the other 

aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief any reasonable accommodation 

was malicious and/or done with reckless indifference to their federally protected rights. 

28. The effect of the practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs has 

been to deprive the Charging Parties and the other aggrieved individuals for whom the 

EEOC seeks relief of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her 

or his status as an employee, because of her or his disability. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Pattern or Practice of Disparate Treatment 

(42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and (b)(5)(B))

29. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby 

incorporated by reference. 

30. Defendants’ policies and/or practices precluding employees from 

transferring while on leave discriminates on the basis of disability. 

31. Defendants’ practice and/or policy of not allowing promotions for 

employees with medical restrictions discriminates on the basis of disability. 

32. Defendants intentionally terminated Janet Reyes, Sherrie Edwards-Redd, 

Jodi Isenberg, Lisa Walker, Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya Howard, Tanya 

Merriweather, and the other aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief 

because of their disabilities, and/or because they regarded them as disabled, and/or 

because of the need to provide reasonable accommodation for their disability, in 

violation of Sections 102(a) and 102(b)(5)(B) of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and 

(b)(5)(B). 

33. Defendants intentionally refused to rehire Janet Reyes, Sherrie EdwardsRedd, Jodi Isenberg, Lisa Walker, Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya Howard, Tanya 

Merriweather, and the other aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief 

because of their disabilities, and/or because they regarded them as disabled, and/or 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 6 of 10
-7- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

because of the need to provide reasonable accommodation for their disability, in 

violation of Sections 102(a) and 102(b)(5)(B) of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and 

(b)(5)(B). 

34. Defendants intentionally refused to allow Darla Alvarado, Janet Reyes, 

Sherrie Edwards-Redd, Vicki Groves, Wanda Villanueva, Chrissie L. Ball, Jodi Isenberg 

Lisa Walker, Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya Howard, Tanya Merriweather, and the 

other aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief to transfer because of their 

disabilities, and/or because they regarded them as disabled, and/or because of the need to 

provide reasonable accommodation for their disability, in violation of Sections 102(a) 

and 102(b)(5)(B) of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and (b)(5)(B). 

35. Defendants’ discriminatory treatment of the Charging Parties and the other 

aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief was done with malice or reckless 

indifference to her or his federally protected rights. 

36. The effect of the practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs has 

been to deprive the Charging Parties, and the other aggrieved individuals for whom the 

EEOC seeks relief, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect 

her or his status as an employee, because of her or his disability. 

37. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the foregoing 

paragraphs were intentional toward the Charging Parties and the other aggrieved 

individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief. 

38. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the foregoing 

paragraphs were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected 

rights of the Charging Parties and the other aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC 

seeks relief. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: 

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, 

servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 7 of 10
-8- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

them, from discriminating against employees or applicants because of disability. 

B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, 

servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with 

them, from retaliating against employees or applicants because they request 

accommodations. 

C. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and 

programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with 

disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful 

employment practices. 

D. Order Defendants to make whole Darla Alvarado, Janet Reyes, Sherrie 

Edwards-Redd, Vicki Groves, Wanda Villanueva, Chrissie L. Ball, Jodi Isenberg, Lisa 

Walker, Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya Howard, Tanya Merriweather, and the 

other aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief by providing appropriate 

back pay and benefits with prejudgment interest, compensatory damages in amounts to 

be proved at trial, and other affirmative and equitable relief necessary to eradicate the 

effects of its unlawful employment practices, including reinstatement or front pay in lieu 

thereof. 

E. Order Defendants to make whole Darla Alvarado, Janet Reyes, Sherrie 

Edwards-Redd, Vicki Groves, Wanda Villanueva, Chrissie L. Ball, Jodi Isenberg, Lisa 

Walker, Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya Howard, Tanya Merriweather, and the 

other aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief by providing compensation 

for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained 

of in the paragraphs above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of 

enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. 

F. Order Defendants to pay Darla Alvarado, Janet Reyes, Sherrie EdwardsRedd, Vicki Groves, Wanda Villanueva, Chrissie L. Ball, Jodi Isenberg, Lisa Walker, 

Danny Hill, Brenda Gallardo, Tanya Howard, Tanya Merriweather, and the other 

aggrieved individuals for whom the EEOC seeks relief punitive damages for its 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 8 of 10
-9- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

malicious or reckless conduct described in the paragraphs above, in amounts to be 

determined at trial. 

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. 

H. Award the EEOC its costs in this action. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

The EEOC requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. 

DATED: __11/3/17_________. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

 

JAMES L. LEE 

Deputy General Counsel 

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS 

Associate General Counsel 

MARY JO O’NEILL 

Regional Attorney 

JAMES P. DRISCOLL-MACEACHRON 

Supervisory Trial Attorney 

/s/ Michael Baskind 

MICHAEL BASKIND 

Trial Attorney(s) 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION 

Phoenix District Office 

3300 N. Central Ave., Ste. 690 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 9 of 10
-10- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTE: It is sufficient for service on the EEOC that pleadings, notices, and any other 

court documents be served on the Trial Attorneys. Duplicate service is not required on 

the General Counsel and Associate General Counsel in Washington, D.C.

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 10 of 10