Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4:21-cv-1074-P |
| Parties | David SAMBRANO et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
John Clay Sullivan, S|L Law PLLC, Cedar Hill, TX, Annika M. Boone, Pro Hac Vice, Joshua James Prince, Pro Hac Vice, Brian J. Field, Pro Hac Vice, Gene C. Schaerr, Pro Hac Vice, Kenneth A. Klukowski, Pro Hac Vice, Mark R. Paoletta, Pro Hac Vice, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP, Washington, DC, Melissa J. Swindle, Robert C. Wiegand, Stewart Wiegand & Owens PC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs David Sambrano, David Castillo, Kimberly Hamilton, Debra Jennefer Thal Jonas, Genise Kincannon.
Esteban Shardonofsky, Vanessa Nicole Rogers, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Houston, TX, Alexander V. Maugeri, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, New York, NY, Donald J. Munro, Hashim M. Mooppan, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Jordan M. Matthews, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Russell D. Cawyer, Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed August 22, 2021. ECF No. 5. For the following reasons, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
This case is not about the constitutionality or efficacy of vaccine mandates promulgated by the government or private entities. Instead, this case focuses on United Airline Inc.’s ("United") accommodation policy for employees who were granted religious or medical exemptions from United's vaccine mandate. Plaintiffs allege that United failed to reasonably accommodate exempted employees and that United retaliated against employees for requesting exemptions.
This Order does not rule on the ultimate merits of this case. Instead, this Order merely rules on Plaintiffs’ request for the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction to enjoin United from placing Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, on unpaid leave. As detailed below, the Court concludes that the Motion must be denied because Plaintiffs do not clearly carry their burden to show they would suffer imminent, irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs are employed by United in a range of different roles. David Sambrano is an aircraft Captain; Genise Kincannon is a Flight Attendant; David Castillo is an Aircraft Technician and mechanic; Kimberly Hamilton is a Station Operations Representative; and Debra Jennefer Thal Jonas is a Customer Service Representative.1 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5–9, ECF No. 67. Plaintiffs brought this employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated employees.2 See id. ¶¶ 1–2.
Plaintiffs’ claims arise from United's COVID-19 vaccine mandate policy. Plaintiffs allege United violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to engage in an interactive process, by failing to provide reasonable religious accommodations, and by retaliating against Plaintiffs for engaging in a protected activity (i.e., requesting an exemption). Similarly, Plaintiffs allege United violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by failing to provide reasonable medical accommodations for qualified employees and for retaliating against those who requested medical exemptions.
On August 6, 2021, United lit the fuse for this lawsuit by announcing that all its employees would be required to get a COVID-19 vaccine. To that end, United mandated that its employees must be vaccinated within five weeks after the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved a vaccine, or five weeks after September 20, 2021, whichever came sooner. TRO Br. at 9, ECF No. 6. Because the FDA approved a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on August 23, 2021, United required its employees to receive a vaccine by September 27, 2021. Id.
United employees could request an exemption from the mandate for religious or medical reasons, but not both. Am. Compl. ¶ 43. Captain Sambrano, Ms. Hamilton, and Ms. Kincannon requested and received religious exemptions, while Ms. Jonas requested and received a medical exemption.3 Mr. Castillo's situation is slightly different because he did not timely submit his exemption request on United's online system.4 Instead, Mr. Castillo emailed his supervisor after the August 31, 2021 deadline and requested both medical and religious emptions. PI Hr'g Tr. Vol. II at 89:10–22, ECF No. 92. Mr. Castillo stated that a United human resources agent said his medical exemption request would be considered, but his tardy religious exemption request would not. Id.
Overall, United granted approximately 80% of the requests for religious exemptions and 63% of the requests for medical exemptions from the vaccine mandate. Id. at 172:4–173:2. United offered these exempted employees the "accommodation" of indefinite unpaid leave.5 United consistently claimed that this heavy-handed approach was the only feasible solution for many of its employees, especially flight-crew members like Captain Sambrano and Ms. Kincannon.6
Accordingly, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on September 21, 2021. Pls.’ Compl., ECF No. 1. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on September 24, 2021. See Order, ECF No. 10. At this hearing, the Parties reached an agreement that obviated the need for the Court to then rule on that motion. See Order Deferring on Ruling, ECF No. 28. Specifically, the Parties stipulated that United would temporarily refrain from placing exempted employees on leave for not complying with United's vaccine mandate.
The Court then set Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction for a hearing on October 8, 2021. Id. The day before that hearing, however, United filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss, alleging the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over claims raised by several Plaintiffs against United. See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 47. To permit Plaintiffs reasonable time to respond to United's jurisdictional challenge, the Court set an expedited briefing scheduling and reset the evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction to October 13, 2021. Order for Expedited Briefing, ECF No. 49.
After the Preliminary Injunction Hearing was reset, on October 12, 2021, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). See TRO, ECF No. 66. As detailed in the TRO, and further clarified in the Court's October 18, 2021 Order, this TRO merely extended the Parties’ stipulated agreement. See TRO and Clarifying Order, ECF Nos. 66, 72. This TRO was necessary to avoid the risk of irreparable injury and to maintain the status quo until Could hold a hearing on and resolve Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
On October 13, 2021, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See ECF No. 86. At this two-day hearing, both Parties admitted exhibits, offered live witness testimony, cross examined the other Party's witnesses, and orally presented their expert witnesses’ opinions.7 The Parties offered competing expert testimony addressing possible alternative accommodations, and their views on whether such accommodations were effective and feasible.
Then, to encourage an amicable resolution of this dispute without further Court intervention, on October 20, 2021, the Court issued a Mediation Order. See Med. Order, ECF No. 81. The Mediation Order appointed Hon. Kent Hance, Chancellor-Emeritus and Hon. Royal Furgeson (Ret.), Dean-Emeritus as mediators, and required the Parties to attend a mediation by October 26, 2021. Id. On October 25, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the TRO to maintain the status quo while the Parties attended mediation. Order Extending TRO, ECF No. 95. The Parties filed a Settlement Conference Report informing the Court that they were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation and outlining the issues that remained. Joint Med. Report and Supp., ECF Nos. 98, 102. Accordingly, Motion for Preliminary Injunction is now ripe for review. As detailed below, the Court cannot grant the Motion for Preliminary Injunction because Plaintiffs have not clearly carried their burden on the second element—irreparable harm.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to "preserve the status quo and thus prevent irreparable harm until the respective rights of the parties can be ascertained during a trial on the merits." City of Dallas v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 847 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). To obtain to a preliminary injunction, the movant must satisfy each of the following equitable elements: "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the threatened harm to the party sought to be enjoined; and (4) granting the injunctive relief will not disserve the public interest." Id. Because a preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy," courts should grant them only if the movant "clearly carries the burden of persuasion on all four requirements." Id. Because Plaintiffs do not meet their burden on the irreparable harm element, the Court analyzes this element alone. See Roho, Inc. v. Marquis , 902 F.2d 356, 361 (5th Cir. 1990) ; see also Miller Pharmacy Servs., LLC v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. , No. CV-3:21-0207, 2021 WL 1095322, at *1 (W.D. La. Feb. 5, 2021) ().
To satisfy the "irreparable harm" prong of the preliminary injunction test, a movant must show an "irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) ; Pendergest–Holt v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London , 600...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc.
-
Hassett v. United Airlines Inc.
...a class action against United, Hassett argues the case should be transferred to that district. Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., 570 F.Supp.3d 409 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (discussing class action). While both parties agree the Court should transfer this case, they disagree on which of two statute......