Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Christina Alessio, Petitioner v. United Airlines, Inc.

Supreme Court briefSep 19, 2019

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinions and Orders

Order of the Sixth Circuit

(June 24, 2019)........ .

Judgment Entry of the District Court of

Northern District of Ohio

(November 20, 2018).........................

Memorandum Opinion and Order of the District

Court of Northern District of Ohio

(November 20, 2018)...;..................................... 8a

Memorandum Opinion and Order of the District

Court of Northern District of Ohio

(February 15, 2018)..... ..................................... 15a

Docket Details

United States Court of Appeals for the

6th Circuit........................................

32a

United States District Court of

Northern District of Ohio...

35a

Notice of Appeal

Plaintiff Filing, Notice of Appeal

(December 18, 2018).............

51a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Complaints

Plaintiff Filing, Amended Complaint

(March 9, 2018)............................

53a

Respectful Amended Complaint

(March 9, 2018).... ...............

55a

Plaintiff Filing, Complaint

(July 7, 2017)...... ........

66a

Charges of Discrimination

Respectfully Submitted with Complaint

Charge of Discrimination

(July 20, 2015)..........

76a

Charge of Discrimination

(April 18, 2017).........

88a

Exhibits to Complaint

Exhibit D — EEOC Letters Missing....................... 94a

‘Dismissal and Notice of Rights” Respectfully

Submitted with Complaint (Docket #1, Attach

ment #5) (Letter Dated: April 18, 2017)........... 94a

“EEOC: FOIA Letter” Respectfully Submitted

with Complaint (Docket #1, Attachment #5)

(Letter Dated: June 2, 2017).............................. 97a

Exhibit E — Emails Respectfully Submitted with

Complaint (Docket #1, Attachment #6)........ 101a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

U.S. Senator’s Response

(July 22, 2015)........

101a

U.S. Congresswoman’s Response

(July 31, 2015).......................

103a

AFA-CWA Senior Staff Attorney’s Response

(February 28, 2017)..............................

105a

Inflight Manager’s Response

(June 7, 2017).................

106a

Follow-Up with Cleveland President of

Association of Flight Attendants

(June 29, 2017).... ............................

108a

Exhibit F — Letters Respectfully Submitted with

Complaint (Docket #1, Attachment #7)....... 110a

U.S. Senator’s Office

(May 25, 2017)...

110a

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

(June 2, 2016)...................................

112a

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) (September 19, 2016)

114a

Health and Wages Overview

Respectfully Submitted with Complaint

Health and Wages Overview

(Docket #1, Attachment #10)

117a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Stricken Evidence from the Court Record

Plaintiff Filing

(Docket 11) (August 21, 2017)

119a

Appeal Letter Request to the EEOC

for Redacted FOIA Information

(August 21, 2017)........................

121a

Plaintiff Filing

(Docket 14) (August 29, 2017)........

127a

Short List of 79 Irregular Operation Reports

with Responses........................................ 129a

Images of Table Pertaining to Irregular

Operations Report.......... ......................... 135a

Plaintiff Filing

(Docket 16) (September 14, 2017)

139a

EEOC^ FOIA Response Letter

(August 29, 2017).............

141a

Plaintiff Filing

(Docket 17) (September 18, 2017)

143a

Email Correspondence Letter of Concern,

With Former President’s Letter of

Response (July 12, 2016)

146a

OSHA Communication Letter

(August 17, 2017).............

150a

Department of Labor Email Correspondence

(September 12, 2017)

152a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Plaintiff Filing

(Docket 19) (September 26, 2017).......

154a

EEOC: FOIA Appeal Response Letter

(September 20, 2017).....................

157a

Letter to the President

(April 20, 2017)......

159a

Irregular Operations Report

(September 26, 2017).....

161a

Emails Requesting hard copy of Personnel/

Medical Files (September 25, 2017)

163a

Plaintiff Filing

(Docket 20) (October 17, 2017)

EEOC: FOIA Appeal Response Letter

(October 6, 2017).............................

Plaintiff Filing

(Docket 21) (October 25, 2017)

166a

169a

177a

Letter from Defendants Legal Representative

(October 20, 2017)

180a

Letter Response to Defendants Legal

Representative (October 25, 2017)

182a

Image of Medical CD

184a

FedEx Record of Delivery of CDs

(October 25, 2017)..................

185a

Plaintiff Filing

(Docket 22) (November 3, 2017)

187a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Emails Including: Inflight Management and

Cleveland AFA Union President

(November 3, 2017)

190a

^MERIGAHTHEVURYi

First Sequel

197a

Second Sequel

301a

£■

■

:«

App.la

ORDER OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

(JUNE 24, 2019)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plain tiff-Appellan t,

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendan t-Appellee.

No. 18-4251

On Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Northern District Of Ohio

Before: SUHRHEINRICH and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

Christina Alessio, a pro se Ohio resident, appeals

a district court judgment dismissing her civil complaint

construed to be filed under the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634; the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.

§§ 12101-12213; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17; and

the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (“HMTA”),

49 U.S.C. § 5124. This case has been referred to a

panel of the court that, upon examination, unanimously

agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a).

App.2a

Alessio, a flight attendant employed by United

Airlines, Inc. (“United”), sued her employer and several

individual management/supervisory employees, alleging

that United uses hazardous air fresheners and cleaning

materials in the cabin of its aircraft in violation of the

HMTA. She contended that her duties as a flight

attendant require her to ensure safe travel for her co

workers and the general public and that United’s use

of the allegedly prohibited materials caused unspecified

illness/injury to herself and others. Alessio also

referenced work-related injuries that she suffered on

the job. She claimed that the defendants’ conduct had

“resulted in [unnecessary] injury to a disability with

no accommodation, age discrimination[,] and on

going continued retaliation and [harassment].” Alessio

attached several documents to her complaint, including

two documents that she identified as “EEOC” discrim

ination charges, l The defendants moved to dismiss

the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proce

dure 12(b)(6), and Alessio responded. Subsequently,

Alessio filed several documents, which the district

court struck from the record because Alessio had not

obtained leave of court to file them and because the

filings were not proper responses to the defendants’

motion to dismiss.

Based on the factual allegations contained in

Alessio’s complaint and the “EEOC” attachments, the

district court construed the complaint as asserting

claims that the defendants had: (l) violated the HMTA,

(2) discriminated against her based on her age, (3)

retaliated against her, and (4) failed to accommodate her

1 As the district court correctly noted, a review of the documents

indicate that they were actually filed with the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission.

App.3a

alleged disability. The district court dismissed the

claims against the individual defendants because

Alessio failed to assert any factual allegations against

them, dismissed any claim under the HMTA because

the Act does not provide for a private cause of action,

and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state

a prima facie case of discrimination. However, the dis

trict court granted Alessio leave to amend her

complaint to allow her to provide additional facts in

support of a claim that United had failed to

accommodate her disability. Alessio filed an amended

complaint, again focusing on her allegations that United

allegedly used hazardous air fresheners and cleaning

materials in its aircraft. Upon consideration, the dis

trict court concluded that Alessio failed to state a prima

facie case for failure to accommodate her disability

because she did not identify a “disability” as defined by

the ADA. Therefore, the district court dismissed the

complaint.

Alessio filed a notice of appeal, indicating that she

wished to challenge the district court’s dismissal of her

claims under the ADA and the HMTA on appeal.

However, her appellate brief presents arguments only

in support of her HMTA claim. She continues to argue

that United is illegally using hazardous materials on

its aircraft and that a certificate of compliance is

required to establish that United is complying with

the HMTA. She also argues that United’s continued

use of hazardous materials might qualify as “an ex

ample of a Civil Conspiracy or [practices of] Inten

tional Tort.” Finally, she argues that the district court

erred when it struck her filings from the record and

failed to consider the evidence presented in those

App.4a

filings. Alessio has filed two appendices, which United

has moved to have stricken from the appellate record.

Initially, Alessio’s attempt to assert civil-conspiracy

and intentional-tort claims is not properly before us

because she did not raise those claims in the district

court, and we will not address them in the first instance

on appeal. See Vance v. Wade, 546 F.3d 774, 781 (6th

Cir. 2008). In addition, Alessio has abandoned her

claims against the individual defendants and her age

discrimination and retaliation claims because she did

not challenge the district court’s dismissal of those

claims in her appellate brief. See Post v. Bradshaw,

621 F.3d 406, 413-14 (6th Cir. 2010); Grace Cmty.

Church v. Lenox Twp., 544 F.3d 609, 618 n.l (6th Cir.

2008).

Alessio has also abandoned her challenge to the

district court’s dismissal of her failure-to-accommodate

claim. Despite her stated intention in her notice to

appeal to challenge the dismissal of that claim, she

failed to present any developed argument challenging

the district court’s ruling on that issue in her appellate

brief. In fact, Alessio stated in her reply to United’s

appellate brief that United had improperly relied on

the ADA in support of its argument that this court

should affirm the district court’s dismissal of her

complaint. Although Alessio is proceeding pro se and

her filings should be liberally construed, “pro se parties

must still brief the issues advanced and reasonably

comply” with the briefing standards set forth in Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 28. Bouyer v. Simon, 22 F.

App’x 611, 612 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing McNeil v. United

States, 508 U.S. 106,113 (1993)); see also Fed. R. App.

P. 28(a)(9). Because Alessio has developed arguments

regarding only her HMTA claim, that is the only claim

App.5a

preserved for appeal. See Dillery v. City of Sandusky,

398 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 2005) (“It is wellestablished that ‘issues adverted to in a perfunctory

manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed

argumentation, are deemed waived.’” (quoting United

States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 566 (6th Cir. 1999)))

abrogated on other grounds by Anderson v. City ofBlue

Ash., 798 F.3d 338, 357 n.l (6th Cir. 2015).

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. Luis v. Zang, 833 F.3d 619, 625 (6th

Cir. 2016). To avoid dismissal, “a complaint must con

tain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

The district court properly dismissed Alessio’s

HMTA claim because the Act does not provide for a

private cause of action. Section 5124 of the HMTA

provides that a person who knowingly violates the Act

“shall be fined . . . , imprisoned for not more than 5

years, or both.” However, criminal statutes generally do

not create private causes of action. See Cent. Bank of

Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank ofDenver, N.A.,

511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994). As the district court correctly

noted, “the fact that a federal statute has been violated

and some person [has been] harmed does not auto

matically give rise to a private cause of action in favor

of that person.” Touche Boss & Co. v. Redington, 442

U.S. 560, 568 (1979) (quoting Cannon v. Univ. of Chi.,

441 U.S. 677, 688 (1979)). The district court concluded

that “nothing in the text of [the HMTA], its legislative

history, or any case law” suggests that § 5124 provides

App.6a

for a private cause of action, and Alessio has pointed to

no authority refuting the district court’s conclusion.

Alessio’s appellate argument that the district court

erred when it struck her supplemental filings from the

record is unavailing because any evidence relating to

United’s use of hazardous materials in violation of the

HMTA would not affect the propriety of the district

court’s dismissal of her claim under the HMTA.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg

ment and DENY the motion to strike Alessio’s

appendices from the record as moot.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF

THE COURT

/s/ Deborah S. Hunt

Clerk

App.7a

JUDGMENT ENTRY OF THE DISTRICT COURT

OF NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

(NOVEMBER 20, 2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plaintiff,

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:17-cv-01426

Before: Honorable Sara LIOI,

United States District Judge.

For the reasons set forth in the contemporaneously

filed Memorandum Opinion, the motion of defendant

United Airlines, Inc. to dismiss the amended complaint

of plaintiff Christina Alessio (Doc. No. 28) is GRANTED.

This case is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Is/ Sara Lioi

Honorable Sara Lioi

United States District Judge

Dated: November 20, 2018

App.8a

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO

(NOVEMBER 20, 2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plaintiff,

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:17-cv-01426

Before: Honorable Sara LIOI,

United States District Judge.

On February 15, 2018, the Court granted the

motion of defendants to dismiss this action, pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted, but afforded pro se plaintiff Christina Alessio

(“Alessio”) leave to amend her complaint to raise factual

allegations that would support a claim against

defendant United Airlines, Inc. (“United”) for failure

to accommodate a disability under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Doc. No. 26 (Memorandum

App.9a

Opinion and Order [“MOO”]) at 232-33.!) On March 9,

2018, Alessio timely filed her amended complaint.

(Doc. No. 27 (First Amended Complaint [“FAC”]).)

Now before the Court is United’s motion to dismiss

the FAC for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 28

[“Mot.”].) Alessio did not file an opposition, and the

time for filing a response brief has passed. Because the

Court finds that the FAC does not allege fact that, if

believed, would support a claim that United failed to

accommodate Alessio’s disability under the ADA, the

motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

Standard of Review

A complaint must contain “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to reliefU” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although

this pleading standard does not require great detail,

the factual allegations in the complaint “must be

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

levelU” BelAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555,

127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (citing author

ities). In other words, “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a

‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitle

ment to relief.” Id. at 556 n.3 (criticizing the Twombly

dissent’s assertion that the pleading standard of Rule 8

“does not require, or even invite, the pleading of facts”).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.

1 All page number references are to the page identification number

generated by the Court’s electronic docketing system.

App.lOa

at 570). Rule 8 does not “unlock the doors of discovery

for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclu

sions.” Id. at 678-79. “When there are well-pleaded

factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity

and then determine whether they plausibly give rise

to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679 (citation omitted).

“The Court need not, however, accept unwarranted

factual inferences.” Total Benefits Planning Agency,

Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430,

434 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Morgan v. Church’s Fried

Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987)).

Further, although pleadings and documents filed

by pro se litigants are “liberally construed” and held

to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007), pro se

plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements

and courts are not required to conjure allegations on

their behalf. Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580

(6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted); see Beaudett v. City

of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985)

(District courts are not required to conjure up questions

never squarely presented to them or to construct full

claims from sentence fragments. To do so would

“require . . . [the courts] to explore exhaustively all

potential claims of a pro se plaintiff. . . [and] would

. . . transform the district court from its legitimate

advisory role to the improper role of an advocate

seeking out the strongest arguments and most success

ful strategies for a party”) (citation omitted); see also

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (The complaint must contain

“more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do.”);

Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d

App.lla

434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988) (all complaints must contain

either direct or inferential allegations respecting all

material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy

federal notice pleading requirements) (citations

omitted).

II.

Background and Discussion

The Court assumes familiarity with its February

15, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order and will only

review the factual and procedural background of the

case briefly to give context to the pending motion.

Alessio is a flight attendant employed by United. (MOO

at 220.) While her pleadings in this case have been

consistently incoherent, the clear impetus for the pre

sent action is Alessio’s belief that United is using

hazardous air fresheners and/or cleaning products in the

cabins of its aircrafts in violation of federal law. (Id)

Affording a liberal construction to her pleading,

the Court interpreted her initial complaint as

attempting to raise claims for violations of 49 U.S.C.

§ 5124, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(“ADEA”), and the ADA. Finding that the allegations

in the complaint, even if believed, did not state a claim

under any of these federal statutes, the Court dis

missed the claims. However, the Court noted that

documents appended to the complaint from certain

agency proceedings indicated that Alessio may have

sought accommodation from United for a possible dis

ability. In an abundance of caution, and after carefully

reviewing the elements of an ADA failure to

accommodate claim, the Court granted Alessio leave

to attempt to plead such a claim. (Id. at 228-33.)

As the Court explained in its February 15, 2018

decision, in order to set forth a prima face case for a

App.l2a

failure to accommodate under the ADA, a plaintiff

must allege sufficient facts, which if true, establish

that: (l) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA;

(2) she is otherwise qualified for her position, with or

without reasonable accommodation; (3) her employer

knew or had reason to know about her disability; (4)

she requested an accommodation; and (5) her employer

failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See

Aldini v. Kroger Co. of Mich., 628 F. App’x 347, 350

(6th Cir. 2015).

Alessio fails to offer factual allegations that, if

believed, would support any of. the elements of an ADA

failure to accommodate claim. Like its predecessor, the

FAC consists largely of her opinions that United is

using dangerous air fresheners in its aircrafts, and

that, as a result, the “Global Air Traveling Public” is

being denied a safe environment. {See, e.g., FAC at

235.) She alleges that air travelers, generally, are being

exposed to harmful chemicals that could result in some

unidentified disability.2 {Id. at 237.) She suggests that

this fact “should raise concern for the need of an

accommodation with respect to the Whole Global Air

Traveling Public being subjected to Chemical Sub

stance Aircraft Cabin Air.” {Id. at 238.)

While Alessio has expressed concern for the safety

and comfort of the air traveling public at large, she

has failed to allege any facts that, if believed, would

2 Alessio also alleges that “the ‘disability’ develops, because of the

‘inability’ to follow safety protocol communicated in the Chemical

Substance air fresheners and Chemical Substance cleaning

products, Material Safety Data Sheets. With respect and for the

record, the Chemical Substance ingredients to the Aircraft Cabin

‘air fresheners’ state: Not applicable.?” {Id. at 238, alterations

and punctuation in original.)

App.l3a

support her ADA claim. First, she has failed to set

forth factual allegations supporting a finding that she

is an individual with a disability, which is a pre

requisite to demonstrating that she is qualified for

protection under the ADA. The FAC identified no

“physical or mental impairment” and no factual allega

tions to support a conclusion that any such impair

ment “substantially limits one or more major life

activitiesU” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(l)(A). This failure, alone,

is fatal to her claim. See, e.g., Currie v. Cleveland

Metro. Sch. Hist., No. 1:15 CV 262, 2015 WL 4080159,

at *4 (N.D. Ohio July 6, 2015) (dismissing pro se comp

laint, noting “[a] complaint alleging an ADA violation

is properly dismissed for failure to identify a dis

ability”). Alessio has also failed to allege that she

requested a reasonable accommodation. Nowhere in

the FAC does she identify any accommodation that she

requested of United, explain how such an accommoda

tion would afford her the ability to perform the

essential functions of her position, or assert that any

such reasonable accommodation was denied her by

United.

As her amended pleading lacks the factual basis

to satisfy any of the elements of a failure to accom

modate claim under the ADA, it is subject to dismissal

with prejudice. See, e.g., Lee v. Sony BMG Music

Entm’t, Inc., 557 F. Supp. 2d 418, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

(dismissing plaintiffs disability discrimination claim

under Rule 12(b)(6) where plaintiff failed to plead that

she could not perform a major life activity and did not

identify her alleged disability); Coleman v. Ford Motor

Co., No. 3:04CV7590, 2005 WL 1459549, at *2 (N.D.

Ohio June 17, 2005) (“Any claim of disability

discrimination that plaintiffs complaint might be read

App.l4a

as asserting is barred due to plaintiffs failure to specify

the allegedly disabling impairment.... Plaintiffs

complaint fails to specify the particular impairment;

indeed, he fails to identify any impairment”).

Moreover, to the extent that the FAC can be inter

preted as improperly seeking to “appeal” this Court’s

February 15, 2018 ruling, such a request is premature

and addressed to the wrong court. (See FAC at 235.)

Alternatively, if Alessio’s request to “appeal”

represents a request for reconsideration, the request

is denied, as she has failed to identify any reason why

she is entitled to reconsideration of the Court’s

February 15, 2018 decision.

III. Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, United’s motion to

dismiss the FAC (Doc. No. 28) is GRANTED. This case

is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sara Lioi

Honorable Sara Lioi

United States District Judge

Dated: November 20, 2018

App.l5a

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO

(FEBRUARY 15, 2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTINA ALESSIO

Plaintiff,

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:17-cv-01426

Before: Honorable Sara LIOI,

United States District Judge.

On July 7, 2017, pro se plaintiff Christina Alessio

(“Alessio”) filed this action against defendant United

Airlines, Inc. (“United”) and several individual defend

ants: Oscar Munoz, Scott Kirby, Brett Hart, Robert

Milton, Sam Risoli, Mary Sturchio, Janie DeVito, and

Kim Piszczek (“individual defendants”) (United and

individual defendants collectively referred to as

“defendants”). Now before the Court is defendants’

motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for a more

App.l6a

definite statement.! (Doc. No. 8 [“Mot.”].) Alessio op

poses the motion (Doc. No. 10 [“Opp’n”]), and defendants

have filed a reply. (Doc. No. 12 [“Reply”].) For the

following reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is

granted, but Alessio is granted leave to amend her

complaint to state a cause of action against United for

a failure to accommodate a disability.

Background

Alesssio is a flight attendant employed by United.

(Doc. No. 1 (Complaint [“Compl.”]) at 22.) Though largely

incoherent, Alessio’s complaint appears to revolve

around her belief that United is unlawfully using

hazardous air fresheners and/or cleaning products in its

aircraft. According to Alessio, these air fresheners

and/or cleaning products constitute “poison” under

federal law, and the use of these products “is simply

wrong and harmful.” {Id. at 2-3.) Alessio indicates that

she is raising a matter of public health, and underscores

her duty as a flight attendant to ensure a safe and

comfortable environment for passengers. She references

two charges she alleges she filed with the Equal

1 On November 15, 2017, the Court entered an order striking

certain extraneous materials filed by Alessio. (See Doc. No. 25.)

Also on November 15, 2017, United filed a motion to strike

additional extraneous materials filed by Alessio. (Doc. No. 24

[requesting that Doc. Nos. 20, 21, and 23 be stricken].) The Court

finds that the filings referenced by United in its motion to strike

do not represent proper responses to defendants’ dispositive motion.

Accordingly, and to the extent that Alessio’s extraneous filings have

not been already stricken from the docket by the Court’s November

15, 2017 order, the Court grants United’s motion to strike.

2 All page number references are to the page identification

number generated by the Court’s electronic docketing system.

App.l7a

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),3 and

appends to her complaint, among other documents,

certain filings associated with those charges. {Id. at 5,

6; Doc. No. 1-5 [“EEOC Docs.”].) She also alludes to

workplace injuries that she or others may have suff

ered, presumably by United’s use of the cleaning pro

ducts and air fresheners. (Compl. at 3.) Finally, she

cites generally to 49 U.S.C. § 5124 and various por

tions of United’s flight attendant’s policy and proce

dures manual.

II.

Standard of Review

A complaint must contain “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to reliefU” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although

this pleading standard does not require great detail,

the factual allegations in the complaint “must be

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level[.]” BelAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555,

127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (citing author

ities). In other words, “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a

‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitle

ment to relief.” Id. at 556 n.3 (criticizing the Twombly

dissent’s assertion that the pleading standard of Rule 8

“does not require, or even invite, the pleading of facts”).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

3 It appears from the filings that the charges were more likely

filed with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”). (See EEOC

Docs, at 13, 20.) The agency designation is of no consequence to

the Court’s analysis, and, for the sake of clarity, these documents

will continue to be referred to as “EEOC Docs.”

App.l8a

173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly; 550 U.S.

at 570). Rule 8 does not “unlock the doors of discovery

for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclu

sions.” Id. at 678-79. “When there are well-pleaded

factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity

and then determine whether they plausibly give rise

to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679 (citation omitted).

“The Court need not, however, accept unwarranted

factual inferences.” Total Benefits Planning Agency,

Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d

430, 434 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Morgan v. Church's

Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987)).

Further, although pleadings and documents filed

by pro se litigants are “liberally construed” and held

to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007), pro se

plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements

and courts are not required to conjure allegations on

their behalf. Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580

(6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted); see Beaudett v.

City ofHampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985)

(District courts are not required to conjure up questions

never squarely presented to them or to construct full

claims from sentence fragments. To do so would

“require . . . [the courts] to explore exhaustively all

potential claims of a pro se plaintiff. . . [and] would

. . . transform the district court from its legitimate

advisory role to the improper role of an advocate

seeking out the strongest arguments and most success

ful strategies for a party.”) (citation omitted); see also

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (The complaint must contain

“more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do.”);

App.l9a

Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d

434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988) (all complaints must contain

either direct or inferential allegations respecting all

material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy

federal notice pleading requirements) (citations

omitted).

In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court “may

consider the [c]omplaint and any exhibits attached

thereto, public records, items appearing in the record

of the case and exhibits attached to [a] motion to dis

miss so long as they are referred to in the [clomplaint

and are central to the claims contained therein.”

Bassett v. Nat’l College Athletic Assh, 528 F.3d 426,

430 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Amini v. Oberlin Coll, 259

F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001)). The EEOC Docs., appen

ded to the complaint, meet this standard and can be

considered.

III. Discussion

Alessio’s complaint is difficult to follow. As best

as the Court can surmise, and based upon the labels

and conclusions contained in the pleading, Alessio

appears to be raising the following claims: (l) a vio

lation of 49 U.S.C. § 5124, (2) age discrimination, (3)

retaliation, and (4) a failure to accommodate her

alleged disability. After liberally construing Alessio’s

complaint, the Court finds that Alessio has failed to

state a claim upon which the Court may grant relief.

Nonetheless, as explained below, the Court shall per

mit Alessio leave to amend her complaint to set forth

factual allegations that support a claim for a failure to

accommodate a disability against United.

App.20a

A. No Private Cause of Action Under Title 49

Alessio makes repeated reference to 49 U.S.C.

§ 5124, and, indeed, it is the only statute she cites in

her pleading. Section 5124 provides criminal penalties,

including fines and imprisonment, for violations of

certain provisions applicable to the transportation of

hazardous materials. The statute does not expressly

provide for a private cause of action, and the Court is

unaware of any federal court that has recognized one.

It is well settled that “the fact that a federal statute

has been violated and some person has been harmed

does not automatically give rise to a private cause of

action in favor of that person.” Touche Ross & Co. v.

Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 568, 99 S. Ct. 2479, 61 L. Ed.

2d 82 (1979) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Rather, “[p]rivate rights of action to enforce federal law

must be created by Congress.” Alexander v. Sadoval,

532 U.S. 275, 286, 121 S. Ct. 1511, 149 L. Ed. 2d 517

(2001) (citation omitted). Courts, therefore, are tasked

with determining whether Congress intended to create

a private cause of action, and may perform this duty

by considering “the text and structure of the statute

at issue, the legislative history, and any relevant case

law.” Courtney v. Ivanov, 41 F. Supp. 3d 453, 458

(W.D. Pa. 2014) (citing McGovern v. City ofPhila., 554

F.3d 114, 119 (3d Cir. 2009) (further citation

omitted)). “Statutory intent [as to the existence of a

private cause of action] is determinative. Without it, a

cause of action does not exist and courts may not

create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a

policy matter, or how compatible with the statute.”

Alexander, 532 U.S. at 287 (citations, including inter

nal citations, omitted).

App.21a

There is nothing in the text of the statute, its

legislative history, or any case law relevant to 49

U.S.C. § 5124 that would suggest that Congress inten

ded to create a private cause of action for civil viola

tions of this statute governing criminal penalties.4 In

the absence of any evidence of congressional intent to

create a private cause of action, the Court is without

authority to recognize one. Accordingly, Alessio has

failed to state a cause of action under 49 U.S.C. § 5124,

and this claim is dismissed with prejudice.

B. Individual Liability

Before turning to the remaining claims, the Court

must address the arguments raised by the individual

defendants. Specifically, they argue that Alessio has

failed to allege any factual allegations against them,

and that, even if she had, her claims would fail as

against them because there is no individual liability.

Alessio has identified eight different individuals,

purportedly employed by United in a variety of mana

gerial positions—from chief executive officer to inflight

supervisor—as defendants in this action. Still, the

complaint does not contain any specific allegations of

any wrongdoing against any of them.5 For this reason

4 49 U.S.C. § 5123 provides for civil penalties, but those penalties

are to be assessed by the government. See § 5123(d) (“The Attorney

General may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court

of the United States to collect a civil penalty under this

section.. . . ”) There is nothing in § 5123 that would indicate that

Congress intended to create a cause of action for private citizens.

5 The EEOC Docs, reference certain supervisors and managers,

but, as discussed supra, no individual liability against these

individuals is available.

App.22a

alone, the individual defendants are entitled to dis

missal from this action. Moreover, to the extent that

she has attempted to bring claims against the indiv

idual defendants for age discrimination, retaliation,

and/or ADA® failure to accommodate a disability,

Alessio’s claims would fail as a matter of law as there

is no individual liability under Title VII, 7 the ADA, or

the ADEA.8 See Mayes v. City of Oak Park, 285 F.

App’x 261, 262 (6th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of

individual defendants as to the plaintiffs ADA and

Title VII claims on the ground that the ADA and Title

VII do not provide for individual liability); Wathen v.

Gen. Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 405 (6th Cir. 1997) (Title

VII does not provide for individual liability because the

definition of “employer” does not include individual

supervisors and observing that the supervisor liability

sections of the ADEA and Title VII may be interpreted

interchangeably). The individual defendants are

entitled to dismissal from this action.

C. Age Discrimination

The complaint’s discussion of possible claims

involving age discrimination, retaliation, and a failure

to accommodate a disability are confined to a single

statement that alleges that United’s use of cleaning

products and air fresheners “has resulted in unneces

sary injury to a disability with no accommodation, age

discrimination and ongoing continued retaliation and

® ADA is an acronym for the Americans with Disabilities Act.

7 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

8 ADEA is an acronym for the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act.

App.23a

harassment.” (Compl. at 2-3.) The use of these labels,

alone, is insufficient to state claims under federal law.

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimina

tion, Alessio must prove and, therefore, must allege

sufficient facts, which if true would establish that: (l)

she was at least 40 years of age at the time of the

alleged discrimination, (2) she was subjected to an

adverse employment action, (3) she was qualified for

the position, and (4) she was replaced by a person out

side the protected class or was treated less favorably

than a similarly-situated, non-protected employee for

the same conduct. See Treadway v. Cal. Prods. Corp.,

659 F. App’x 201, 207-08 (6th Cir. 2016) (citations

omitted); Schoonmaker v. Spartan Graphics Leasing;

LLC, 595 F.3d 261, 264 (6th Cir. 2010) (same) (citation

omitted).

Beyond the conclusory statement that she has been

the victim of age discrimination, the complaint is

entirely devoid of any factual allegations that support

an age discrimination claim. Alessio fails to allege in

her complaint that she is over the age of forty, or that

she was subjected to an adverse employment action

because of her age. She also has failed to set forth

factual allegations demonstrating that she was treated

less favorably than a similarly-situated, non-protected

employee for the same conduct, something, as a current

employee, she would have to allege to set forth a prima

facie case.

The only possible basis for such a claim appears

in the EEOC Docs., wherein Alessio claims that her

manager made her aware of United’s “Early-Out

Program” in an email on October 16, 2014. (EEOC Docs,

at 19.) Alessio alleges that her manager’s suggestion

that she was eligible for this early retirement program

App.24a

was evidence of age discrimination. 9 Id. (“Why would

my Manager want me to know I was eligible for the

Company Early-Out Program .. . [other than because

she believed] “ [i] t was time for me to retire from my

career [?]”).

“The terms ‘retire’ and ‘retirement’ alone, without

any evidence that they are being used as a proxy for

age to express discriminatory basis, are not direct

evidence of age discrimination.” Treadway, 659 F. App’x

at 207 (citation omitted). Alessio points to no other facts

that, if believed, would establish that this reference to

her eligibility for United’s early retirement program

represented age-based animus, and Alessio’s “personal

belief to the contrary is not enough to compel a differ

ent conclusion.” Id. (citing Chappell v. GTE Prods.

Corp., 803 F.2d 261, 268 (6th Cir. 1986)). Moreover, a

“company’s decision to offer [early retirement] incentive

programs does not indicate a policy of age discrimina

tion, since the programs offer older workers benefits

not available to younger employees.” Wilson v. Firestone

Tire & Rubber Co., 932 F.2d 510, 514 (6th Cir. 1991)

(citation omitted). As a result, the allegation relating

to the email from her manager would be insufficient to

state a plausible claim for age discrimination.

D. Retaliation

To state a prima facie case of retaliation, Alessio

must set forth facts that, if believed, would establish:

(l) she engaged in protected activity, (2) she was sub

jected to a materially adverse action, and (3) a causal

link existed between the protected activity and the

9 In these same filings, Alessio notes that she is “close to the age

of 55 years.” (EEOC Docs, at 19, underlining omitted.)

App.25a

materially adverse action. See EEOC v. Ford Motor

Co., 782 F.3d 753, 767 (6th Cir. 2015).

As was the case with her purported age claim, the

only facts offered in support of possible retaliation can

be found in the EEOC Docs. According to Alessio, she

was “subjected to a punitive work environment”

shortly after she authored an email comparing ex

amples of hazardous products used in her work environ

ment when she was issued a verbal warning. (EEOC

Docs, at 18.) She claimed that she was also issued a

written warning “for inappropriate behavior and ac

tions.” (Id. at 19.) She represented in these same EEOC

Docs, that she disagreed with both the verbal and

written warnings because she was merely fulfilling her

obligations contained in United’s operations manual in

regard to her work environment. (Id)

The complaint fails to identify any protected

activity for which she could have been subjected to

retaliation. Even assuming the filing of administrative

charges on July 20, 2015 and April 18, 2017 (see EEOC

Docs, at 13, 20) constituted protected activity,10 the

warnings she claims to have received on February 11,

2015 and March 31, 2015 could not have been in

retaliation for the subsequently filed administrative

charges. Further, even if they were, they would not

constitute adverse employment actions. See, e.g.,

Eisenbaum v. Senior Lifestyle Corp., 1:10-CV-701,

2013 WL 3776543, at *6 n.2 (S.D. Ohio July 17, 2013)

(finding that to the extent the plaintiff claimed that

10 In the EEOC Docs., Alessio also points to five unsuccessful work

injury claims she filed between May 19, 2010 and September 19,

2014. (EEOC Docs, at 17.) Alessio does not attempt to connect

these claims to the warnings she received in 2015.

App.26a

the issuance of a performance improvement plan and

three other warnings constituted retaliation, such

claims failed because they did not qualify as adverse

employment actions); see also McGraw v. Ohio Bell

Tel. Co., No. 1:12 CV 1620, 2013 WL 3864585, at *12

(N.D. Ohio July 24, 2013) (“As a matter of law, written

and verbal warnings do not constitute ‘adverse employ

ment action’ for purposes of establishing a prima facie

case of discrimination or retaliation.”) (collecting Sixth

Circuit authority). Because Alessio cannot establish

the first two necessary elements, she has failed to

state a claim for retaliation.

E. Failure to Accommodate an ADA Disability

With respect to the final claim—a failure to

accommodate a disability recognized under the ADA—

the complaint does not elaborate on the nature of any

disability or even confirm that the alleged failure to

accommodate was associated with her disability. The

ADA prohibits discrimination “against a qualified

individual on the basis of disability in regard to job

application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or

discharge of employees, employee compensation, job

training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges

of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The ADA defines

“qualified individual” as “an individual who, with or

without reasonable accommodation, can perform the

essential functions of the employment position that

such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).

The ADA defines “disability” as “a physical or mental

impairment that substantially limits one or more

major life activities of such individual[.]” 42 U.S.C.

§ 12102(1)(A).

App.27a

In order to set forth a prima face case for a failure

to accommodate under the ADA, a plaintiff must

allege sufficient facts, which if true, establish that: (l)

she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she is

otherwise qualified for her position, with or without

reasonable accommodation; (3) her employer knew or

had reason to know about her disability; (4) she

requested an accommodation; and (5) her employer

failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See

Aldini v. Kroger Co. of Mich., 628 F. App’x 347, 350

(6th Cir. 2015).

The only details relative to Alessio’s purported

failure to accommodate appear in Alessio’s admin

istrative filings. There, Alessio alleges that she

developed Rheumatoid Arthritis in February 2003.

(EEOC Docs, at 14.) She claims that she is “capable of

performing [her] essential job functions” when she is

“not being forced to breathe the hazardous air

fresheners onboard the aircraft in [her] work environ

ment.” {Id) In these same documents, she maintains

that her disability has been aggravated by United’s

use of air freshener disks and that, for a period of time,

United refused her doctor’s suggested accommodation of

removing or “sealing” the air freshener disks from

aircraft on which she flies. {Id. at 15, 16.) While she

admits that United eventually changed the air

freshener products it was using, and gave her permis

sion to throw away any air freshener disk she found in

her work environment, these measures came after she

sustained an aggravation to her existing disability

that caused her to miss work. {Id. at 16-17.) She

complains that she has been denied back pay from

March 17, 2014 to November 4, 2014. {Id. at 17.)

App.28a

United argues that, to the extent that Alessio is

attempting to re-litigate her work injury claims she is

precluded by Ohio law. The Ohio Workers’ Compensa

tion statute provides that employers “shall not be

liable to respond in damages at common law or by

statute for any injury, or occupational disease, or

bodily condition, received or contracted by any employee

in the course of or arising out of [her] employment [.]”

Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.74. Ohio courts accordingly

recognize the general rule that workers’ compensation

is the exclusive remedy for an employee injured as a

result of negligence. Ritchie v. Bravo Corp., 585 F. Supp.

1455,1456 (S.D. Ohio 1984). Therefore, the Court agrees

that Alessio cannot re-litigate her workers’ compensa

tion claims in this forum.

Nonetheless, an ADA failure to accommodate claim

is a cause of action available to workers under federal

law that is separate and apart from any workplace

injury claim under state law. United argues that the

complaint fails to set forth such a claim under the

ADA because Alessio has failed “to allege sufficient

facts to establish that she is a qualified individual

with a disability.” (Mot. at 102, citation omitted.) It is

true that “a plaintiffs failure ‘to identify, even in

general terms, [her] disability and failture] to identify

a specific medical condition for which [she] was

regarded as disabled’ does not meet the threshold

pleading requirements” under the ADA. See Currie v.

Cleveland Metro. Sch. Dist., No. 1:15 CV 262, 2015

WL 4080159, at *4 (N.D. Ohio July 6, 2015) (quoting

Thomas v. Dana Commercial Vehicle Prods., LLC, No.

4:13 CV-00041-JHM, 2014 WL 1329948, at *4 (W.D. Ky.

Apr. 1, 2014)). Yet United concedes that Alessio

indicates in the EEOC Docs, that she suffers from

App.29a

Rheumatoid Arthritis. These same documents also

recount—though in a disjointed and incomplete way—

communications with United’s management regarding

her medical condition and possible accommodations,

involvement in a company-sponsored accommodation

program, and steps ultimately taken by United to

address Alessio’s medical concerns.

Ultimately, the Court agrees with United that the

complaint does not set forth factual allegations that, if

believed, would satisfy all of the elements of a prima

facie case of failure to accommodate under the ADA.

Nonetheless, based upon the materials appended to the

complaint, the Court believes that Alessio should be

afforded an opportunity, if she chooses, to amend her

complaint to set forth factual allegations necessary to

state a claim for failure to accommodate under the

ADA against United.!! See Brown v. Matauszak, 415

11 It would appear from these same materials that United did

take certain actions to accommodate Alessio’s claimed disability,

although the timing and the nature of those accommodations are

not entirely clear. As a general rule, an employee “cannot base a

disability discrimination claim upon an employer’s delay in

providing a requested accommodation where the delay is due to

internal processing or to events outside the employer’s control.”

Gerton v. Verizon S. Inc., 145 F. App’x 159, 168 (6th Cir. 2005)

(district court did not err in granting summary judgment on ADA

accommodation claim where the employer placed the employee

in a temporary position while considering her claim) (citations

omitted); Gustavison v. Shinseki, No. 10-12024-BC, 2011 WL

3566417, at *11 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2011) (‘Delays caused by

administrative procedures for processing a request do not

demonstrate discrimination.”); see, e.g., Edmunds v. Bd. of Control

ofE. Mich. Univ., No. 9-11648, 2009 WL 5171794, at *6 (E.D. Mich.

Dec. 23, 2009) (summary judgment on ADA accommodation claim

granted where university provided accommodation and any delay

was not result of bad faith); but see Jurgess v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs.,

Inc., No. 05-71241, 2006 WL 2909848, at *5-6 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 10,

App.30a

F. App’x 608, 616 (6th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend pro

se complaint should have been given, even without a

request for such relief, where post-judgment motion

revealed that information existed to cure the

complaint deficiencies). The Court grants this leave in

an abundance of caution, recognizing both the unique

challenges facing pro se litigants and the preference

that actions be determined on the merits. By affording

leave, the Court makes no determination as to the

merits of such a claim, nor does it offer a prediction as

to whether the factual allegations in any amended

claim will be sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss.12

IV. Conclusion

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion

to dismiss is granted. Alessio’s claims for a violation of

49 U.S.C. § 5124, age discrimination, and retaliation,

as well as any and all claims against the individual

defendants, are dismissed with prejudice. Alessio’s

claim for failure to accommodate a disability under

the ADA against United is also dismissed, with leave

to amend. Alessio is afforded 30 days from the date of

2006) (summary judgment denied where genuine issue of

material fact as to whether the delay in providing accommodation

was reasonable). It also is the case that a disabled employee is

not entitled to the accommodation of her choosing. See Trepka v.

Bd. of Educ., 28 F. App’x 455, 460 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court

cannot determine from Alessio’s EEOC Docs., alone, whether the

accommodations offered or any delay in providing those

accommodations was reasonable or the result of bad faith.

12 Because the Court has found that Alessio’s complaint fails to

state a cause of action for a failure to accommodate, but has

elected to permit Alessio to amend her complaint, the Court

denies defendants’ alternative motion for a more definite statement.

App.31a

this memorandum opinion and order in which to file

an amended complaint raising a claim against United

for failure to accommodate a disability under the

ADA. Leave to amend is limited to this ADA claim

against United, only, as it would be futile to permit

leave to amend the other claims against United or any

claims against the individual defendants. See Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 601 F.3d

505, 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (It is futile to allow a party to

amend the complaint if even after amendment, the

complaint could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion

to dismiss.) (citation omitted). Should Alessio fail to

timely file a fully compliant amended complaint within

30 days of this ruling, the Court will enter judgment

in United’s favor as to the ADA claim as well, and close

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Is/ Sara Lioi

Honorable Sara Lioi

United States District Judge

Dated: February 15, 2018

App.32a

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE 6TH CIRCUIT DOCKET DETAILS

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 18-4251

Nature of Suite: 3442 Civil Rights; Jobs

Christina Alessio v. United Airlines, Inc.

Appeal from: Northern District of Ohio at Akron

Fee Status: fee paid

12/21/2018

Civil Case Docketed. Notice filed by Appellant

Christina Alessio. Transcript needed: n.

(MMP) [Entered: 12/21/2018 10:11 AM]

12/21/2018

The case manager for this case is: Monica

Page (MMP) [Entered: 12/21/2018 10:30 AM]

01/04/2019

BRIEFING LETTER SENT setting pro se

briefing schedule: appellant brief due 02/19/

2019; appellee brief due 03/21/2019. (RLJ)

[Entered: 01/04/2019 08:25 AM]

01/09/2019

APPEARANCE filed for Appellee United

Airlines, Inc. by Kathleen J. Sanz. Certif

icate of Service: 01/09/2019. [18-4251] (KJS)

[Entered: 01/09/2019 04:01 PM]

01/09/2019

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

filed by Attorney Ms. Kathleen J. Sanz for

Appellee United Airlines, Inc. Certificate of

App.33a

Service: 01/09/2019. [18-4251] (KJS) [Entered:

01/09/2019 04:35 PM]

01/09/2019

APPEARANCE filed for Appellee United

Airlines, Inc. by Natalie M. Stevens. Certif

icate of Service: 01/09/2019. [18-4251] (NMS)

[Entered: 01/09/2019 05:12 PM]

01/10/2019

DEFICIENCY NOTICE: The appearance

form, [6], filed by Ms. Natalie Michele Stevens

for United Airlines, Inc. is deficient for the

reason noted on the attached checklist. (MMP)

[Entered: 01/10/2019 09:30 AM]

02/06/2019

APPELLANT BRIEF filed by Ms. Christina

Alessio Certificate of Service:02/04/2019. Argu

ment Request: PRO SE (MMP) [Entered:

02/06/2019 02:33 PM]

02/06/2019

APPENDIX filed by Ms. Christina Alessio

Copies: 01-ONE VOLUME. Certificate of

Service: 02/04/2019. (MMP) [Entered: 02/06/

2019 02:47 PM] 02/06/2019

SEALED APPENDIX filed by Ms. Christina

Alessio Copies: Personal information-1 Page

Certificate of Service: 02/04/2019. (MMP)

[Entered: 02/06/2019 02:50 PM]

App.34a

02/19/2019

FILED: Addendum to Appellant’s brief by

Ms. Christina Alessio.-[Edited 03/04/2019 by

RLJ] (MMP) [Entered: 02/21/2019 04:02 PM]

03/11/2019

MOTION filed by Ms. Natalie Michele Stevens

for United Airlines, Inc. to strike appendix.

Certificate of Service: 03/11/2019. [18-4251]

(NMS) [Entered: 03/11/2019 03:57 PM]

03/11/2019

13 APPELLEE BRIEF filed by Ms. Natalie

Michele Stevens for United Airlines, Inc.

Certificate of Service: 03/11/2019. Argument

Request: not requested. [18-4251] (NMS)

[Entered: 03/11/2019 04:01 PM]

03/22/2019

REPLY BRIEF filed by Party Ms. Christina

Alessio Certificate of Service: 03/21/2019.

(MMP) [Entered:03/22/2019 12:04 PM]

06/24/2019

ORDER filed: We AFFIRM the district court’s

judgment and DENY the motion to strike

Alessio’s appendices from the record as moot

[12]. Richard F. Suhrheinrich, Circuit Judge

and Helene N. White, Circuit Judge. (MMP)

[Entered: 06/24/2019 04:09 PM]

07/16/2019

MANDATE ISSUED with no costs taxed.

(MMP) [Entered: 07/16/2019 02:24 PM]

App.35a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

DOCKET DETAILS

U.S. District Court

Northern District of Ohio (Akron)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:17-cv-01426-SL

Internal Use Only

Alessio v. United Airlines, Inc. et al

Assigned to: Judge Sara Lioi

Date Filed: 07/07/2017

Date Terminated: 11/20/2018

Plaintiff

Christina Alessio

Represented by

Christina Alessio

#589

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd.

Bath, OH 44210

PRO SE

07/07/2017

Complaint against all Defendants. Filing fee

paid, $400.00, receipt # 54660006281, filed

by Christina Alessio. (Attachments: # 1 Civil

Cover Sheet, # 2 Index, # 3 Exhibit B-Book“America the Jury”, # 4 Exhibit C-DVD, # 5

Exhibit D-EEOC Letters, # 6 Exhibit E-

App.36a

Emails, # 7 Exhibit F-Letters, # 8 Exhibit GWork Injury Claims, # 9 Exhibit H-Irregular

Operations Reports, # 10 Health & Wages

Overview). DVD and complete book on file in

Clerk’s Office. (M,TL) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/7/2017

Judge Sara Lioi assigned to case. (M,TL)

(Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/07/2017

Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a

referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate

Judge Kathleen B. Burke. (M,TL) (Entered:

07/07/2017)

07/7/2017

Original Summons and Magistrate Consent

Form issued to plaintiff at counter for service

upon Janie DeVito, Brett Hart, Scott Kirby,

Robert Milton, Oscar Munoz, Kim Piszczek,

Sam Risoli, Mary Sturchio, United Airlines,

Inc. (M,TL) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/10/2017

Service by Clerk. Summons and Complaint

addressed to Janie DeVito (receipt #7015

1520 0001 5320 4833), Brett Hart (receipt

#7015 1520 0001 5320 4956), Scott Kirby

(receipt #7015 1520 0001 5320 4963), Robert

Milton (receipt #7015 1520 0001 5320 4857),

Oscar Munoz (receipt #7015 1520 0001 5320

4970), Kim Piszczek (receipt #7015 1520 0001

5320 4932), Sam Risoli (receipt #7015 1520

App.37a

0001 5320 4949), Mary Sturchio (receipt #7015

1520 0001 5320 4840), United Airlines, Inc.

(receipt #7015 1520 0001 5320 5007) placed

in U.S. Mail. Type of service: certified mail.

(M,TL) (Entered: 07/10/2017)

07/10/2017

Copy of Notice of Electronic Filing of Service

by Clerk mailed to Christina Alessio, #589,

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd., Bath, OH

44210 on 07/10/2017. (M,TL) (Entered:

07/10/2017)

07/17/2017

Return of Service by Clerk by certified mail

executed upon Janie DeVito on 7/12/2017;

Kim Piszczek on 7/12/2017, filed on behalf of

Christina Alessio. Related document(s) 2.

(D,JJ) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017

Copy of 3 Return of Service Executed mailed

to Christina Alessio, #589, 1970 N. ClevelandMassillon Rd., Bath, OH 44210 on 7/17/2017.

Related document(s) 3. (D,JJ) (Entered: 07/

17/2017)

07/20/2017

Return of Service by Clerk by certified mail

executed upon Mary Sturchio on 7/12/2017,

filed on behalf of Christina Alessio. Related

document(s) 2. (D,JJ) (Entered: 07/20/2017)

07/20/2017

Return of Service by Clerk by certified mail

executed upon Brett Hart on 7/13/2017;

App.38a

Robert Milton on 7/13/2017; and Oscar Munoz

on 7/13/2017, no delivery date on green cards,

dates obtained from U.S. Postal Service

website, filed on behalf of Christina Alessio.

Related document(s) 2. (D,JJ) (Entered: 07/

20/2017)

07/20/2017

Copy of 5 Return of Service Executed, and 4

Return of Service Executed mailed to Chris

tina Alessio, #589, 1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd., Bath, OH 44210 on 7/20/2017. (D,JJ)

(Entered: 07/20/2017)

07/21/2017

Return of Service by Clerk by certified mail

executed upon Sam Risoli on 7/13/2017;

United Airlines, Inc. on 7/13/2017, no delivery

date on green card, date obtained from U.S.

Postal Service website, filed on behalf of

Christina Alessio. Related document(s) 2.

(D,JJ) (Entered: 07/21/2017)

07/21/2017

Copy of 6 Return of Service Executed, mailed

to Christina Alessio, #589, 1970 N. ClevelandMassillon Rd., Bath, OH 44210 on 7/21/2017.

(D,JJ) (Entered: 07/21/2017)

07/28/2017

Return of Service by Clerk by certified mail

executed upon Scott Kirby on 7/18/2017, filed

on behalf of Christina Alessio. Related docu

ments) 2. (D,JJ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

07/28/2017

App.39a

Copy of 7 Return of Service Executed mailed

to Christina Alessio, #589, 1970 N. ClevelandMassillon Rd., Bath, OH 44210 on 7/28/2017.

Related document(s) 7. (D,JJ) (Entered: 07/28/

2017)

08/02/2017

Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to

State a Claim or, in the Alternative, Motion

for More Definite Statement filed by Janie

DeVito, Brett Hart, Scott Kirby, Robert Milton,

Oscar Munoz, Kim Piszczek, Sam Risoli,

Mary Sturchio, United Airlines, Inc. Related

document(s) 1. (Stevens, Natalie). Modified to

add motion part (motion for more definite

statement) on 8/4/2017 (T,Je). (Entered: 08/

02/2017)

08/07/2017

Initial Standing Order. Judge Sara Lioi on

8/7/2017. (P,J) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/07/2017

Copy of 9 Initial Order mailed to Christina

Alessio, #589, 1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon

Rd., Bath, OH 44210 on 8/7/2017. (P,J) (En

tered: 08/07/2017)

08/15/2017

Opposition to 8 Motion to Dismiss Complaint

for Failure to State a Claim or, in the

Alternative, Motion for More Definite State

ment filed by Christina Alessio. (D,JJ)

(Entered: 08/15/2017)

08/21/2017

App.40a

Stricken 11/15/2017: Supplement to 1 Com

plaint, Attachment # 5, Exhibit D-EEOC Let

ters, filed by Christina Alessio. (Attachments:

# 1 Letter to Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission). (D,JJ) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/28/2017

Reply in support of 8 Motion to Dismiss

Complaint for Failure to State a Claim or, in

the Alternative, Motion for More Definite

Statement filed by All Defendants. (Stevens,

Natalie) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/28/2017

13 Motion to strike Extraneous Material from

the Record filed by Defendant United Airlines,

Inc.. (Stevens, Natalie) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/29/2017

Stricken 11/15/2017: Plaintiff Respectfully

Submitting (l) Short List of 79 Irregular Oper

ation Reports Since 2014, including Defen

dants’ Validation and Answers to Reports

(Reference Complaint 07/07/17: Exhibit H) (2)

Respectful Response to Answer. Related

Doc(s) 1, filed by Christina Alessio. (Attach

ments: # 1 Irregular Operation Reports). Modi

fied text and regenerated electronic notifica

tion on 8/30/2017 (D,JJ). (Entered: 08/30/2017)

09/05/2017

15 Motion to strike Additional Extraneous

Material From the Record filed by Defendant

United Airlines, Inc.. (Stevens, Natalie) (En

tered: 09/05/2017)

App.41a

09/14/2017

Stricken 11/15/2017: Plaintiff respectfully sub

mitting Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission’s response to Appeal Letter

requesting redacted FOIA Information filed

by Christina Alessio. (Attachments: # 1 Letter

from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission dated August 29, 2017). (D,JJ)

(Entered: 09/14/2017)

09/18/2017

Stricken 11/15/2017: Plaintiff respectfully

submitting (l) Email correspondence letter

of concern, with former President’s letter of

response; (2) OSHA’s written communication

letter with email correspondence; and (3)

respectfully requesting my correspondence

letter with our present President, from OSHA,

awaiting the letter from OSHA to respect

fully submit filed by Christina Alessio.

(Attachments: # 1 Correspondence dated July

12, 2016, # 2 Correspondence dated February

2, 2016, # 3 Correspondence dated August

17, 2017). (D,JJ) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

09/22/2017

Motion to strike Additional Extraneous Mat

erial from the Record and for an Order

Directing Plaintiff to Refrain from Further

Filing of Extraneous Material filed, by Defen

dant United Airlines, Inc.. Related document(s)

11. 17, 14, 16. (Huffman, Heather) (Entered:

09/22/2017)

App.42a

09/26/2017

Stricken 11/15/2017: Plaintiff respectfully

submitting (l) Equal Employment Opportu

nity Commission’s response letter regarding

the Freedom of Information Act Appeal for

Redacted Information, extended due to

unusual circumstances till October 6, 2017;

(2) Occupational Safety and Health Admin

istration’s Copy of Plaintiffs Correspondence

Letter written for our Honored Present

President; (3) Irregular Operations Report

dated September 22, 2017; and(4) Emails

requesting a Hard copy of my personal and

medical files with defendant. Request denied,

instead both files were sent to parties

responding to complaint, filed by Christina

Alessio. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

dated September 20, 2017, # 2 Correspon

dence from Plaintiff dated April 20, 2017, # 3

Irregular Operations Report dated September

23, 2017, # 4 Email exchange dated Septem

ber 25, 2017). (D,JJ) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

10/17/2017

Stricken 11/15/2017: Plaintiff respectfully

submitting Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission’s response letter regarding my

freedom of information act appeal for redacted

and withheld information in my EEOC

Administrative files, is dated October 6, 2017,

and again, denied. Respectfully, is this ob

struction of Justice, seeking the truth, the

whole truth and nothing but the truth? With

respect, I believe a total of 12 pages are being

App.43a

withheld as to the matter and transparency of

my case, filed by Christina Alessio. (Attach

ments: # 1 Letter from U.S. Equal Employ

ment Opportunity Commission dated October

6, 2017). (D,JJ) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/25/2017

21 Stricken 11/15/2017: Exhibits filed by Chris

tina Alessio. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from

defense counsel regarding medical and per

sonal files, # 2 Response to defense counsel

regarding missing information in medical

file, # 3 Manually filed CD containing medical

information, # 4 Manually filed original USB

drive containing past work injury claims

(and CD containing copy of same)). 2 CDs and

USB placed in file in Clerk’s Office. (S,HR)

(Entered: 10/25/2017)

11/03/2017

22 Stricken 11/15/2017: Notice: Plaintiff respect

fully submitting 1.) Respectful emails to my

inflight management, requesting a copy of

my entire personal file, beginning with date

of hire 8/13/1998. As per my union: the

Association of Flight Attendants, I believe

flight attendants are entitled to a copy of

their personal file. A first respectful request

was made for information in my personal file

before complaint filed 7/7/2017. In specific,

2/24/2016, CPR work injury emails, respect

fully requesting my entire personal file, for

complete transparency to the matters of my

case, filed by Christina Alessio. (Attachments:

App.44a

# 1 Email exchanges). (D,JJ) (Entered: 11/03/

2017)

11/13/2017

Stricken: See Order on 2/15/2018-Notice:

Plaintiff respectfully submitting: 1.) Respect

ful phone call made November 13, 2017, with

an inquiry to Akron, Ohio Industrial Commis

sion, for the Aircraft Cabin Cleaning and Air

Freshening Products/Work Injury Claims:

#15-859117, #15-863145 and #15-863147.

Date of Injuries: 11/27, 11/28, and 12/20/

2015. Respectfully requesting work injuries be

heard at the district level, within the 2 year

statutory time frame. Respectfully, a request

will be made for the hearing to be court

reported and of public record, for insight,

clarity and understanding. Respectfully,

there are still products presently with non

disclosure of ingredients in air fresh

eners/safety health hazard rating level on

product label, being used inside the aircraft

cabin, filed by Christina Alessio. (D,JJ) Mod

ified text to mark stricken on 3/2/2018 (T,Je).

(Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/15/2017

24 Motion to strike Additional Extraneous Mate

rial From the Record and for an Order

Directing Plaintiff to Refrain From Further

Filing of Extraneous Material filed by

Defendant United Airlines, Inc.. (Huffman,

Heather) (Entered: 11/15/2017)

App.45a

11/15/2017

Order: The Court has reviewed plaintiffs ex

traneous filings, and finds that they do not

represent proper responses to defendants’

motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 8) Further, the

Court notes that plaintiff has filed a timely

response to defendants’ dispositive motion,

and briefing on that motion is now closed.

Defendant United Airline’s motions (Doc.

Nos. 13, 15, and 18) to strike Doc. Nos. 11, 14.

16. and 17 are granted. For the same reasons,

the Court sua sponte strikes Doc. Nos. 19, 20,

21. and 22. The Court shall rule on defen

dants’ motion to dismiss in due course.

Should the Court require additional briefing

or other material from the parties, it will

request it. In the event that any portion of

plaintiffs case survives the motion to dismiss,

the Court will schedule this matter for a case

management conference. In the interim,

plaintiff is directed to cease filing further ex

traneous matters on the docket without

leave of Court and is warned that failure to

follow this directive may result in sanctions

up to and including dismissal of this action.

Judge Sara Lioi on 11/15/2017.(P,J) (Entered:

11/15/2017)

11/15/2017

Copy of 25 Order mailed on 11/15/2017 to:

Christina Alessio, #589, 1970 N. ClevelandMassillon Rd., Bath, OH 44210. (P,J) (En

tered: 11/15/2017)

App.46a

02/15/2017

26 Memorandum Opinion And Order: The Court

finds that the filings referenced by United in

its motion to strike (Doc. No. 24) do not

represent proper responses to defendants’ dis

positive motion. Accordingly, and to the ex

tent that Alessio’s extraneous filings have

not been already stricken from the docket by

the Court’s November 15, 2017 order, the

Court grants United’s motion to strike. For

all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’

motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is granted.

Because the Court has found that Alessio’s

complaint fails to state a cause of action for

a failure to accommodate, but has elected to

permit Alessio to amend her complaint, the

Court denies defendants’ alternative motion

for a more definite statement. Alessio’s claims

for a violation of 49 U.S.C. Section 5124, age

discrimination, and retaliation, as well as

any and all claims against the individual

defendants, are dismissed with prejudice.

Alessio’s claim for failure to accommodate a

disability under the Americans with Disab

ilities Act against United is also dismissed,

with leave to amend. Alessio is afforded 30

days from the date of this memorandum

opinion and order in which to file an amended

complaint raising a claim against United for

failure to accommodate a disability under

the Americans with Disabilities Act. Should

Alessio fail to timely file a fully compliant

amended complaint within 30 days of this

ruling, the Court will enter judgment in

App.47a

United’s favor as to the Americans with Dis

abilities Act claim as well, and close this case.

Judge Sara Lioi on 2/15/2018. (P,J) (Entered:

02/15/2018)

02/15/2017

Copy of 26 Memorandum Opinion and Order

mailed on 2/15/2018 to: Christina Alessio,

#589, 1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd., Bath,

OH 44210. (P,J) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

03/09/2018

27 Amended Complaint against United Airlines,

Inc., filed by Christina Alessio. (D,JJ) (En

tered: 03/12/2018)

03/26/2018

28 Motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended com

plaint for failure to state a claim, with memo

randum in support, filed by Defendant United

Airlines, Inc. Related document(s) 27. (Huff

man, Heather) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

08/28/2018

29 Motion for leave to file 3_public court report

documents filed by Plaintiff Christina Ales

sio. (0,K) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

08/31/2018

Opposition to 29 Motion for leave to file 3

public court report documents filed by United

Airlines, Inc. (Huffman, Heather) (Entered:

08/31/2018)

09/05/2018

App.48a

Order [non-document]: Plaintiff has sought

leave to file records that she represents

involved hearings before the Ohio Industrial

Commission that occurred after the filing of

this present federal action. (Doc. No. 29.) The

motion is denied. On March 29, 2018, defen

dants filed a renewed motion to dismiss (Doc.

No. 28) and briefing on that motion is now

closed. The Court will issue a ruling on

defendants’ motion in due course. Judge

Sara Lioi on 9/5/2018.(P,J) (Entered: 09/05/

2018)

09/06/2018

Copy of Notice of Electronic Filing from 9/5/

2018 Non-Document Order mailed on 9/6/2018

to: Christina Alessio, #589,1970 N. ClevelandMassillonRd., Bath, OH 44210. (P,J) (Entered:

09/06/2018)

11/20/2018

Memorandum Opinion And Order: Defendant

United’s motion to dismiss the first amended

complaint (Doc. No. 28) is granted. This case

is closed. Judge Sara Lioi on 11/20/2018.

(P,J) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/20/2018

Judgment Entry: For the reasons set forth in

the contemporaneously filed Memorandum

Opinion, the motion of defendant United Air

lines, Inc. to dismiss the amended complaint

of plaintiff Christina Alessio (Doc. No. 28) is

granted. This case is closed. (Related Doc. No.

App.49a

31). Judge Sara Lioi on 11/20/2018. (P,J) (En

tered: 11/20/2018)

11/21/2018

Copy of 32 Judgment, 31 Memorandum Opin

ion and Order mailed to Christina Alessio at

#589, 1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd., Bath,

OH 44210 on 11/21/2018. (T,Je) (Entered:

11/21/2018)

12/07/2018

Motion for permission for leave of court to re

open case for clarification filed by Plaintiff

Christina Alessio. (0,K) (Entered: 12/07/2018)

12/11/2018

Opposition to 33 Motion for leave to Re-Open

Case for Clarification filed by United Airlines,

Inc.. (Stevens, Natalie) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/12/2018

Order [non-document]: The Court construes

plaintiffs pro se filing (Doc. No. 33) as a

request for reconsideration of its decisions

dismissing plaintiffs complaint and first

amended complaint. For all of the reasons

set forth in its memorandum opinions, the

motion is denied. (See Doc. Nos. 26, 32; see

also Doc. No. 25.) Judge Sara Lioi on 12/12/

2018.(P,J) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/12/2018

Copy of Notice of Electronic Filing from 12/12/

2018 Non-Document Order mailed on 12/12/

2018 to: Christina Alessio, #589, 1970 N.

App.50a

Cleveland-Massillon Rd., Bath, OH 44210.

(P,J) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/18/2018

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Sixth Circuit

Court of Appeals from the Order (non-docu

ment) of 12/12/2018, filed by Christina Alessio.

Filing fee paid 12/19/18, receipt# 54660006853. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D EEOC Dis

missal and Notice of Rights) (0,K) (Entered:

12/18/2018)

12/19/2018

USCA Appeal Fees received $505.00, receipt

number 54660006853 regarding 35 Notice of

Appeal. (M,TL) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/26/2018

Acknowledgment from the USCA for Sixth

Circuit of receipt of 35 Notice of Appeal

(USCA# 18-4251). Date filed in USCA 12/21/

18. (H,SP) (Entered: 12/26/2018)

07/18/2019

True copy of mandate from the USCA for the

Sixth Circuit: Affirming the District Court’s

judgment re 35 Notice of Appeal (USCA# 184251). Date issued as mandate 7/16/19, Costs:

None (H,SP) (Entered: 07/18/2019)

App.51a

PLAINTIFF FILING, NOTICE OF APPEAL

(DECEMBER 18, 2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plaintiff, pro se,

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-01426

Notice is hereby given that Christina Alessio (pro

se), hereby respectfully appeal to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the final

judgement, Order dated 12/12/2018.

With respect, the U.S. Equal Employment Oppor

tunity Commission closed its file April 18, 2017, and

issued a “Notice of Rights” letter, unable to verify and

certify that my Employer is in compliance with the

statues.

With respect, the Federal Court ruled for the

defendant on the bases of ADA, however, has not

verified nor certified that my Employer is compliant

with the statues. With respect to this case, I believe a

certification of compliance is required that my

Employer is following the Rule of Law.

App.52a

With respect to my appeal I must then therefore

ask, is my Employer 100% in compliance with Federal

Law 49 U.S. Code 5124, using chemical air-fresheners

and other chemical products inside the aircraft cabin?

Respectfully entered on this day, December 18,

2018.

/s/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

Cleveland-Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify, on this day of December 18,

2018, a copy of my Notice ofAppeal, has been faxed to

216-357-4733. This fax number is to my Employer’s

Legal Representatives, Ms. Heather Huffman and Ms.

Natalie Stevens.

Sincerely,

Is/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

Plaintiff, pro se

App.53a

PLAINTIFF FILING, AMENDED COMPLAINT

(MARCH 9, 2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plaintiff,

UNITED AIRLINES,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-01426

Before: Sara LIOI, Judge,

Kathleen B. BURKE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Respectfully submitting:

Respectful Amended Complaint to state a

cause of action with respect to health, safety

and security, that in fact chemical substances

are used for “air-fresheners” and “cleaning”

products, inside the aircraft cabin.

Failure to accommodate a disability, with

respect to Americans with Disabilities Act.

With respect, the injury/illness (disability)

effects not only Americans, but the global air

traveling public, inside the aircraft cabin.

App.54a

Respectful remedy for airline accommodation

relief: safe and transparent products with

the utmost respect to “air-traveler’s” health

and safety, products used to clean and airfreshen the aircraft cabin should be made

transparent, no secrets, with complete list of

ingredients made available for a better air

quality environment, so to avoid any and all

injury/illness.

/s/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

App.55a

RESPECTFUL AMENDED COMPLAINT

(MARCH 9, 2018)

INTRODUCTION:

Respectfully, I am complying to respond with

HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SARA LIOI and the MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER, dated February 15, 2018.

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT, please

accept my written amended complaint.

Respectfully, I am a Flight Attendant with a

sincere duty and obligation to ensure a safe and

comfortable environment in the Aircraft Cabin, for the

Global Air Traveling Public. With great respect, I am not

only required by my Employer to communicate safety,

but encouraged to keep people safe by communicating

with our United States Government: “See Something.

Sav Something”.

Respectfully, as an American Citizen who loves

this Great Country, I truly believe in our United

States Constitution: To Protect the People. With great

respect, this includes the Health and Welfare, Safety

and Security of the People, who are inflight within our

Global Air Traveling Public. With respect, Aircraft

Cabin Air Quality does matter.

Respectfully, on April 18, 2017, I received a

“Notice of Rights” letter from the EEOC. The EEOC

stated in the letter that they could not certify that

my Employer was in compliance with the statues.

This is why on July 7, 2017, I respectfully filed with

the Federal Court. Respectfully, to receive confirmation,

App.56a

verification and certification that infact my Employer

is 100 percent in compliance with the statues.

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT. I believe

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, states and I

quote in part, “Alessio’s claims for a violation of 49

U.S.C. Section 5124, age discrimination, and retaliation,

as well as any and all claims against the individual

defendants, are dismissed with prejudice.”

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT, please

allow me to apologize. Apologize with respect, that I

am not an Attorney. And with respect, that I am a

Flight Attendant.

I greatly respect your opinions and decisions,

however, I would respectfully like to appeal if that is

an option. Respectfully, if the Rule of Law does not

allow the ability to appeal, I will respectfully concur.

Respectfully, I must say however that I am still

unclear if my Employer is 100 percent in compliance

with the statues. Respectfully and due to this uncer

tainty, I have reached out to further Government

Agencies for clarification of my Employers certification

and compliance with the statues.

Honorable Leaders of the United States of America

•

Honorable Attorney General, Mr. Jeff Sessions

•

Honorable Director of the Federal Bureau of Inves

tigation, Mr. Christopher Wray

•

Honorable Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency, Mr. Scott Pruitt

•

Honorable Secretary of Transportation, Ms. Elaine

Chao

App.57a

•

Honorable Secretary of Health and Human Services,

Mr. Alex Azar

A respectful notarized letter was addressed to our

Honorable Leaders, requesting assistance, searching

for answers.

Respectfully, I would like to provide for you the

letter which I wrote to our most Honorable Leaders of

the United States of America, as well as further

evidence including a Public Court Report, of which I

was under oath and testified on January 30, 2018.

Respectfully, I do believe I need your permission to

submit further evidence. I am willing to be 100 percent

transparent, if you will allow me.

RESPECTFUL AMENDED COMPLAINT

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT. I would like

to begin my amended complaint with the focus on a

SET of FACTS, which will include DEFINITIONS and

RULE of LAW.

Respectfully, I am relying on FACTS. DEFINI

TIONS and RULE of LAW for fairness, righteousness

and justice. Respectfully, I will also give my respectful

opinion, thereafter for thoughtful review.

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT TO THE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. I believe on

page one, it states and I quote in part:

“Alessio is granted leave to amend her com

plaint to state a cause of action against United

for a failure to accommodate a disability.”

App.58a

RESPECTFUL FACTS, DEFINITIONS and RULE of

LAW:

1. FACT: Definition of the word “disability”:

Disability is a condition such as an injury/ill

ness that damages or limits a person’s

physical/mental abilities.

Disability is the condition of being unable to

do things in a normal way.

2. FACT: Definition of Americans With Disabilities

Act “ADA”: Legislation that was passed in 1990 which

prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities.

With respect as I understand, under ADA, discrimination

against disabled people is illegal in employment,

transportation, public accommodations, communications

and government activities.

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT. Chemical

Substance air fresheners and Chemical substance

cleaning products used in the Aircraft cabin, is a direct

and potential result to the definition of “disability”.

Respectfully, is it possible for Crew Members and

Customers being forced to breathe the Cabin air of

Chemical Substances used in the Aircraft Cabin, with

respect, communicate this as Chemical Substance Abuse?

Respectfully, could the Chemical Substance

practice used in the Aircraft Cabin also be communi

cated as a form of Human Traffic, with Air Traveler’s

being subjected to exposure and inhalation of Chemical

Substances to which can cause injury/illness (a disa

bility), hurtful and harmful to peoples Health and

Safety?

App.59a

Respectfully, I believe this is a National Security

lack of concern. With respect, not just the lack of con

cern to protect Americans from Air Travel injury/ill

ness (a disability), but respectfully, the lack of concern

for the Whole Global Air Traveling Public. The Global

Air Traveling Public deserves accommodation in trans

portation with 100 transparency to safe products for air

freshening and cleaning the Aircraft cabin.

Respectfully. I believe this is about: Product Lia

bility and Accountability with the request and need

for Transparency. With respect, the request and need

for a better Aircraft Cabin Air Quality environment to

avoid any and all injury/illness.

Respectfully, I believe this is about: “Chemical

Substance Use/withheld ingredients: Aircraft Cabin Air”

vs. “Clean/Transparent: Aircraft Cabin Air-Quality”.

3. FACT: To state a cause of action against UnitedRespectfully, I believe a cause of action against

United is to state that in fact there is use and “carriage

of hazardous materials”, conducted inside the Aircraft

Cabin. Chemical Substance air fresheners and Chemical

Substance cleaning products.

4. FACT: For a failure to accommodate a disabilityRespectfullv. I believe for a failure to accommodate

a “disability” is the fact that the “ability” for Crew

Members and Customers, to follow the first aid protocol

from the Employer’s Use of Chemical Substances in

the Aircraft cabin, is Not an option.

YOUR HONOR, the “disability” develops, because

of the “inability” to follow safety protocol communi

cated in the Chemical Substance air fresheners and

Chemical Substance cleaning product, Material Safety

App.60a

Data Sheets. With respect and for the record, the

Chemical Substance ingredients to the Aircraft Cabin

“air fresheners” state: Not applicable.?

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT. I believe

the inability to follow first aid protocol to the Chemical

Substance products, used inside the Aircraft Cabin, is

a pure violation of our human rights, civil rights and

with great respect to my Employer, gross negligence

on behalf of the Health and Welfare, Safety and Security

of the Whole Global Air Traveling Public. With respect,

the injury/illness (a disability) effects not only

Americans, but the Whole Global Air Traveling Public.

Respectfully, I believe this should raise concern for the

need of an accommodation with respect to the Whole

Global Air Traveling Public being subjected to Chemical

Substance Aircraft Cabin Air. Respectfully, Aircraft

Cabin Air Quality does matter, it should be made 100

percent safe and transparent.

5. FACT: Opposition Research began in 2014,

when United Flight Attendants were required to

acknowledge a “Hazard Communication Module”, or

were unqualified to fly. With respect, this included the

Chemical Substance Products used for “air freshening”

the aircraft cabin.

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT. I believe

having a Hazard Communication Module regarding

Chemical Substances used in the Aircraft Cabin is a

pure violation of the Rule of Law.

6. FACT: Federal Law states and I quote in part,

“Federal law forbids the carriage of hazardous materials

aboard aircraft in your luggage or on your person. A

violation can result in 5 years imprisonment and

penalties of $250,000 or more (49 U.S.C 5124),

App.61a

Hazardous materials include”, and I further quote in

part, “poisons”.

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT. I believe

my Employers use and carriage, of hazardous material

Chemical Substance air fresheners and Chemical Sub

stance cleaning products aboard the aircraft is a pure

violation of Federal law, posing potential harm to

Crew Members and Customers.

7. FACT: Definition of the word “poison”;

Poison is a substance that can cause harm or injury

to people.

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT. I believe

there is a potential to cause harm, injury or illness (a

disability) to Crew Members and Customers with the

Employers use of Aircraft Cabin Chemical Substances.

Respectfully, Chemical Substances are poison.

With respect, breathing in Chemical Substances

inside the Aircraft Cabin environment, I believe is

unlawful, extreme carelessness and not normal for the

Health and Welfare, Safety and Security of all Crew

Members and Customers. Respectfully, Crew Members

and Customers simple normal inhalation (breathing)

inflight with the Chemical Substances inside the Aircraft

Cabin, go into their bodily system with every breath,

and unfairly poses injury/illness (a disability) and is

harmful, hurting to the Global Air Traveling Public’s

Health, Welfare, Safety and Security.

8. FACT: Material Safety Data Sheet information

on the Chemical Substance products for the Aircraft

Cabin are communicated, in my Public Court Report

Hearing dated, January 30, 2018. With respect, it is a

simple fact, that the first aid protocol is not an option,

App.62a

which unfairly can cause the action of unnecessary

injury/illness (a disability).

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT, mav I have

vour permission to respectfully submit to the Federal

Court, mv Public Report Record dated January 30.2018?

9. FACT: UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:

TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE

IN CONCLUSION:

The Summary of Facts, Definitions and Rule of law:

Definition of “disability”

Definition of American’s with Disabilities

Act (ADA)

Amended Complaint to state a cause of action

Amended Complaint for failure to accommo

date a disability

Hazard Communication Module—Regarding

Aircraft Cabin Chemical Substance Products

Federal Law 49 U.S.C. 5124

Definition of “poison”

Material Safety Data Sheets—First Aid pro

tocol, not an option

U.S. CONSTITUTION: To Protect the People

RESOLUTION AND REMEDY FOR RELIEF:

YOUR HONOR AND WITH RESPECT. I believe

in the U.S. Constitution: To protect the People.

YOUR HONOR ANO WITH RESPECT. I believe

in a sincere remedy for relief.

App.63a

Respectfully, 100 percent Transparency with

Certification and Compliance to the Rule of

Law with all Aircraft Cabin air freshening

and cleaning products.

With respect, products to be made safe, trans

parent and public, for our National Security.

With respect, products to be made safe, trans

parent and public for the Health, Welfare

and Safety for the Whole Global Air Travel

ing Public.

IN CLOSING:

With respect, I believe in the United States of

America.

With respect, I believe in the United States Con

stitution: To Protect the People.

With respect, I believe and trust our Government

will do what is right: To Protect the People.

With respect, I believe and trust in GOD, the

Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth.

With respect, I believe in Faith, Hope and Love.

With respect, I believe with the dignity and respect

the Whole Global Air Traveling Public deserves. that

pure and simple, safe and transparent, Aircraft Cabin

Air Quality products for a more pleasant flying ex

perience across America and Around the World, will

one day prevail.

This respectful letter was written with care,

concern and kindness.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

App.64a

Sincerely,

/s/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

Flight Attendant

Pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on March 9, 2018, the

following respectful amended complaint was submitted

and filed at the Federal Courthouse, United States

District Court Northern District of Ohio, with the

Clerk of Courts.

Respectfully, two copies were also served by

Certified Mail on March 9, 2018, to the nine collective

“Individual” Defendant’s Attorneys:

Natalie M. Stevens (0079963)

Heather M. Huffman (0078362)

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

127 Public Square, Suite 4100

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

With respect and for reference, the list of nine

“Individual Defendants” are as followed:

United Airlines, Inc.

Mr. Oscar Munoz

Mr. Scott Kirby

Mr. Robert Milton

Mr. Brett Hart

Mr. Sam Risoli

App.65a

Ms. Mary Sturchio

Ms. Janie DeVito

Ms. Kim Piszczek

Respectfully,

/s/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

Plaintiff and Pro se

App.66a

PLAINTIFF FILING, COMPLAINT

(JULY 7, 2017)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO

Plaintiff,

UNITED AIRLINES,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-1426

Before: Sara LIOI, Judge.,

Kathleen B. BURKE, Magistrate Judge.

1. Name of the Party Address

United Airlines, Inc.

233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606

• Mr. Oscar Munoz-CEO

• Mr. Scott Kirby-President

• Mr. Brett Hart-EVP Chief Administrator Officer

and General Counsel

• Mr. Robert Milton-Chairman of the Board

of Directors of United Continental Holdings

• Mr. Sam Risoli SVP Inflight Services

App.67a

United Airlines, Inc.

Newark’s Liberty International Airport

1 Terminal C EWRSW

Newark, New Jersey 07114

• Ms. Mary Sturchio—Sr. Manager

Human Resources and Employee Relations

United Airlines, Inc.

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

5300 Riverside Drive Cleveland, Ohio 44135

• Ms. Janie DeVito-Sr. Inflight Manager

• Ms. Kim Piszczek-Inflight Supervisor

2. STATE the BASIS of the COURT’S JURISDICTION

•

49 U.S.C. § 5124

3. FACTS of the CASE

A. FEDERAL LAW

•

49 U.S.C. § 5124—Respectfully in part and in

summary, Federal Law forbids the use of hazar

dous material onboard Commercial aircraft,

including poisons.

Definition of poison: a substance that can cause

harm and injury to people.

B. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM

MISSION

With respect and based upon the EEOC’s investi

gation conclusion, the 2 discrimination charges are

with my understanding that the EEOC could not

certify that the Respondent is in compliance with the

Statues. Respectfully, I believe the matter is therefore,

still unresolved.

App.68a

As an American Citizen and a Commercial Airline

Flight Attendant with duties, obligations and respon

sibilities to uphold, I therefore deem it necessary to

respectfully submit and file a complaint with the Res

pondent for insight, clarity and understanding.

With respect and in specific, insight, clarity and

understanding as to the Certification of the Respond

ent’s Compliance with the Statues. Respectfully par

ticularly to Federal Law, 49 U.S.C. 5124, in part and

with specific definition thereof: poisons.

C. RESPONDENT

1. 2014 HAZARD COMMUNICATION MODULE was

required by all Flight Attendant’s to acknowledge or

not qualified to fly. Respectfully, this is in fact the

matter and evidence I truly believe is not in

Compliance with the Statues, and is in violation of

Federal Law 49 U.S.C. § 5124, in part and with specif

ic definition thereof: poisons.

Only Flight Attendants (Customers exempt), were

required by the Respondent to acknowledge a Hazard

Communication (HazCom) Module or were not qualified

to fly. I truly believe our Customers are unaware and

uninformed, don’t know to know, that the chemical

(poison) products being used to clean and air freshen

inside the aircraft cabin, are with the inability to

follow the recommended first aid procedures.

With respect, I truly believe our Global Air-Trave

ling Customers believe, that the United States Global

Airline Carriers, are also required to follow Federal

Law.

Respectfully, the Respondent’s Hazard Commu

nication Module to chemical (poison) cleaning and air

App.69a

freshening products with no protective measures has

resulted in unnecessary injury to a disability with no

accommodation, age discrimination and ongoing con

tinued retaliation and harassment. Respectfully, I

have been following the Respondents Policy and Proce

dures Manual to the best of my ability with regards to

“Safety is Top Priority”, as well as what we have

always been taught, “See something, Say something”.

Respectfully I believe there is “there-there”, for

certain to be reviewed.

•

The Law: There is a Federal Law: 49 U.S.C. § 5124.

With respect, and in specific to poisons.

•

The Fact: There is a Hazard Communication Mod

ule. With respect, and in specific to the Respond

ent’s cleaning and air freshening products for the

aircraft. Protective measures are not an option.

With respect, I believe the above, “there-there”, is

a conflict.

With respect, I believe there is need for review of

certification confirmation in Compliance with the

Statues, as well as the approval for such a Module

when it conflicts with Federal Law. Respectfully,

including sources and methods, ways and means for

the reason behind the Respondent’s use of such

chemical (poison) cleaning and air freshening products.

Please note also in part: Substances and Components

are, “Not Applicable”.

With respect, I truly believe the Respondent’s

Hazard Communication Module is a violation of Fed

eral Law, but also a violation of our human rights to

protective measures, as well as, our dignity and respect.

App.70a

Respectfully, every Customer and Crew Member

partake in this very exact same environment. Article

5: An attack against one is an attack against all.

As an American Citizen to our Constitution, there

is a duty to uphold:

•

To Protect the People

As a Flight Attendant for a Commercial Airline,

there is a duty to uphold:

•

To ensure a Safe and Comfortable Environment

Respectfully, I believe the Hazard Communication

Module to chemical (poison) cleaning and air fresh

ening products used, at will onboard the aircraft,

is simply wrong and harmful. I truly believe is

goes against Federal Law 49 U.S.C. § 5124.

Please, let’s fix this.

With heart, it’s never too late to do the right thing.

2. May 2nd and 4th, 2017—Current Events. With

great respect, Lawmakers communicated with the

Airline Industry on Capitol Hill, stating to improve

service or Congress will step in.

Respectfully, I believe “service” includes the safety

and welfare, dignity and respect to Customers too. The

change for clean air-quality standards was not men

tioned.

Respectfully, I believe the Hazard Communication

Module to chemical (poison) cleaning and air freshening

products used at will, inside the aircraft cabin (that

every Customer and Crew Member breathes), was then

and is now, most crucial and necessary for change.

Respectfully, this is about choice. The choice to use

chemical (poison) cleaning and air freshening products

App.71a

with no protective measures, for people to breathe

onboard. With respect, resulting in unnecessary illness

or injury.

With great respect to our Customers and Crew

Member’s, our health and well being should matter.

Respectfully, we deserve pure, clean, transparent, non

toxic aircraft cabin cleaning and air freshening

products in this particular and unique environment,

because our health matters.

3. Respondents “Contract of Carriage”—Respectfully 1

believe, the legal fine print governing Customers

onboard the aircraft is not transparent to the

Substances and Components of the aircraft cabin

cleaning and air freshening products. In specific, the

Hazard Communication Module required to acknow

ledge by all Inflight Employee Flight Attendant’s, or

were not qualified to fly.

4. WORKING TOGETHER GUIDELINES provided

by the Respondent for Flight Attendant’s to follow in

our Policy and Procedures Manual. With respect and

in specific, the information can be found in Chapter 6.

•

Responsibility: In part, Flight Attendants are res

ponsible to work safely and promptly report any

concerns up the leadership chain until resolved.

•

Dignity and Respect: In part, we work to achieve a

workplace free of discrimination and harassment

for any protected category under law, and to report

concerns promptly until resolved.

•

Safety Policy: In part, communicates that the

safety, welfare and health of our Employees and

Customers are very important. With respect the

Respondent further states, that we all share in the

App.72a

responsibility of running a safe operation and

maintaining a safe and healthful workplace.

•

Ethics and Compliance: In part, the Ethics and

compliance entails making business decisions,

protecting our assets, complying with laws and

policies, maintaining a commitment to deliver a

clean, safe and reliable product, and treating each

other with dignity and respect.

•

Equal Employment Opportunity Policy: In part the

Respondent states, we provide equal opportunity to

all Employees and applicants without regard to any

protected category under applicable law.

•

Reasonable Accommodation: In part, Respondent

provides equal employment opportunity for individ

uals, so they may perform safely the essential

functions of their job.

•

Affirmative Action: In part, Respondent states: As

a federal contractor, we comply with the legal

requirements.

•

Harassment and Discrimination: In part the Respon

dent states, we expect Employees to treat each

other with dignity and respect. The Respondent

further states in part that, we are committed to pro

viding a work environment free from offensive dis

crimination, with any protected category under

applicable law.

Respectfully,

As an American citizen to our constitution, there

is a duty to uphold:

•

To Protect the People

App.73a

As a Flight Attendant for a commercial Airline,

there is a duty to uphold:

To ensure a Safe and Comfortable Environment

MOTIONS TO FILE WITH COMPLAINT

With respect to my 2 dismissed EEOC charges

and the EEOC’s conclusion with my right to be heard

in court, 1 would like to file 2 Motions with my Com

plaint, for Good Cause.

1. Motion for Discovery

Respectfully I would like to request, a Motion for

Discovery for the HazCom Module and the Products.

With respect, the Respondent’s 2014 to date Hazard

Communication Module for Flight Attendants ack

nowledgement, or not qualified to fly. I believe this to

be the supporting evidence to the matter and my Com

plaint. With respect to the Hazcom Module, all

products used for the aircraft cabin, including name of

product, its use, and the material safety data sheet, is

respectfully requested for discovery.

2. Motion to File Complaint Under Seal

Respectfully, I would like to request with my Com

plaint submission today, that any and all documents,

today and/or in the future, from attorney, counsel or

pro-se, plaintiff or defendant, whether filed electronic

ally or manually, be kept under Document Seal, L.R.,

Rule 3.1.

May it please be known, I will remain open to and

encourage, with the court’s approval, the opportunity

for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), L.R., Rule

16.4.

App.74a

THE RESPECTFUL RELIEF REQUEST:

1. FOR GOOD CAUSE

• U.S. Global Commercial Aircraft Chemical (poison)

Cleaning and Air Freshening Products:

With respect, all products need to be certified and

approved by the FAA and OSHA, as harmless,

transparent, with no secrets. Respectfully, the complete

list of ingredients is made available, including frag

rance.

Respectfully, the Commercial Airline Industry

will be required to update, out dated chemical (poison)

products, used for cleaning and air freshening the

aircraft cabin.

With great respect, this is about the dignity and

respect to the Global Air-Traveling Public, following

Federal Law, Safety, and the Healthcare and Well

Being of Customers and Crew Members.

2. Income Wage Loss

Aircraft cabin air quality work injuries docu

mented at the Ohio Industrial Commission, from the

2014 Hazard Communication chemical products, with

no alternate protective measures provided by the Res

pondent. Exhibit: G.

3. Insult to Injury

With respect to Federal Law and referencing my

2 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, dis

crimination charges. Exhibit: A.

• #532-2015-01733 Respectfully submitting The

Particulars (6 pages)

App.75a

•

#532-2017-00265 Respectfully submitting The

Particulars (2 pages)

4. Heartless and unusual discipline

Resulting in unnecessary injury. Exhibits: B, C,

G and H.

5. With Respect to Corporate and Management,

please come fly with me.

/s/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

App.76a

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

(JULY 20, 2015)

Charge Presented to: EEOC

Agency(ies) Charge No(s): 532-2015-01733

State or Local Agency, if any:

•

Ohio Civil Rights Commission and EEOC

Name: Miss Christina Alessio

Date of Birth: 1960

Street Address:

1970 N. Cleveland Massillon Rd. #589,

Bath, OH 44210

Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employ

ment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or

Local Government Agency That I Believe Discrimi

nated Against Me or Others. (If more than two, list

under PARTICULARS below.)

Name: United Airlines (Based in Cleveland)

Street Address:

Cleveland Hopkins Airport,

Cleveland, OH 44135

No of Employees, Members: 283

Phone No: (216) 501-4087

Discrimination Based On:

•

Retaliation

Age

Disability

App.77a

Date Discrimination Took Place:

•

Earliest 03-06-2014

Latest 07-15-2015

THE PARTICULARS ARE (if additional paper is

needed, attach extra sheet(sj)\

See attachments

Respectfully Submitting 6 Pages

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and

the State or Local Agency, if any. I will advise the

agencies if I change my address or phone number and

I will cooperate fully with them in the processing of

my charge in accordance with their procedures.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above

is true and correct.

/s/ Christina Alessio

Charging Party Signature

Date: 7-20-15

App.78a

EEOC ATTACHMENT

CHARGE #532-2015-01733

THE PARTICULARS ARE:

• DISABILITY/RETALIATION/AGE

•

110 pages respectfully submitted to the EEOC,

May 11, 2015

•

133 pages of emails respectfully submitted to the

EEOC, July 7, 2015

• July, 2015: Number of Employees under the Res

pondent based in Cleveland, Ohio: 283

• I began my employment with the Respondent in

August, 1998.

• I developed a medical Disability of Rheumatoid

Arthritis in February, 2003.

With respect, I am fit for duty and qualified to

perform my essential job functions with my Disability

and have since 2003, when diagnosed with

Rheumatoid Arthritis.

With respect, I am capable of performing my

essential job functions. With respect, I am greater

capable of performing much better and healthier, with

the ability of working more hours in my work

environment, when I’m not being forced to breathe the

hazardous air fresheners onboard the aircraft in my

work environment. With respect, first aid procedures

on the aircraft are not an option in my work

environment and protective measures are not provided

by the Respondent. The Doctors were all in agreement

with me sealing the air freshener as a reasonable

App.79a

accommodation to my Disability. This seemed sensible

to me too.

Respectfully, I was denied the permission from

the Respondent to follow my Doctors recommendation

to my Disability, March 2014 to November 4, 2014.

DISABILITY/RETALIATION:

With respect, I believe I have been discriminated

because of my Disability and retaliated by the Respond

ent from March 6, 2014 to November 4, 2014.

With respect, I was specifically instructed and

advised in a Mandatory meeting called by my Cleve

land Inflight Manager, Janie DeVito, on March 6,

2014, not to remove the Air Freshener Disks in my

work environment.

With respect, the Air Freshener Disks in my work

environment are a rated a Health Hazard and aggra

vate my Disability.

Flight Fresh Deodorant Disk (Aircraft Air Fresh

ener Disk): Material Safety Data Sheet states: Ingre

dients withheld/First Aid procedures: seek fresh air.

With respect, I asked Janie in the meeting how I

was to protect my Disability from aggravation in my

work environment to the Air Freshener Disks. With

respect, Janie responded, “I don’t know. You need to

do your research, it needs to pass by Management and

get approved by Corporate.”

No (accommodations) protective measures to the

Air Freshener Disks in my work environment for my

medical Disability (to avoid injury) were given to me

by my Inflight Manager, Janie DeVito.

App.80a

I returned to work fit for duty on March 16, 2014,

for the start of a 4 day trip. I followed my Managers

direction and instructions and did not remove the Air

Freshener Disks in my work environment. My

Disability was becoming more and more aggravated to

the Air Freshener Disks emitting in my work

environment. March 17, 2014, I flew Fort Myers to

Newark and went directly to the Airport Employee

Health Clinic, where I was taken off my trip by the

Health Clinic, due to severe aggravation and injury to

my medical Disability.

On March 19, 2014, the Respondent sent a letter

inviting me to participate in the Reasonable Accom

modation Program. I graciously accepted.

With respect, I believe I have been discriminated

because of my Disability and retaliated by the Respond

ent. I respectfully called a meeting with my Inflight

Manager to review the research I was instructed to do

on March 6, 2014. The meeting was held on July 18,

2014. Up to this date, I was denied the ability to follow

my Doctors Recommendation to return to work safely.

With respect, in this meeting I communicated to my

Inflight Manager, Janie DeVito, “You are forcing me to

breathe the Air Freshener Disks in my work

environment.”, Her response was, “I’m not forcing you

to come to work.” I then asked, “What happens when

I get on the aircraft and the Air Freshener Disk is

missing?” This was asked because sometimes for

whatever reason the Air Freshener Disks on the

aircraft were missing. With respect, Janie’s response

was, “Consider that your lucky day.”

With respect, I believe I have been discriminated

because of my Disability and retaliated by the

Respondent. An email from my Inflight Manager,

App.81a

Janie DeVito was sent to me on October 24, 2014. In

the email she states, “The deodorant disks are a

necessary item onboard the aircraft.” With respect,

this was not the communication I received in the

meeting, July 18, 2014. With respect, the Air Fresh

ener Disks were not an operational “no go” item on the

aircraft. With respect, No accommodation was made to

my Disability to return to work safely, from March 17,

2014 to November 4, 2014.

With respect, I believe I have been discriminated

because of my Disability and retaliated by the Respond

ent. Respondent’s Reasonable Accommodation Program

continuously denied me from March 2014, to November,

2014, the permission to follow the Doctors Recom

mendation as a “Reasonable Accommodation”, so I

could return to work safely and quickly as possible.

The Doctors Recommendation was to seal the Air

Freshener Disk when in my work environment to

protect my medical Disability from further aggra

vation (Doctors include: Rheumatologist, Allergist,

Immunologist, Dermatologist, PCP and Occupational

Medicine).

With respect, I believe I have been discriminated

because of my Disability and retaliated by the Respond

ent. With respect, the Reasonable Accommodation

Program Administrator, Jennifer Dziepak and my

Inflight Manager, Janie DeVito, never allowed or gave

me the permission to follow the Doctors Recommen

dation as a Reasonable Accommodation to my

Disability, so I could return to work safely.

Due to an overwhelming financial burden by put

ting my Health first, I had no choice but to returned to

work without an accommodation (protective meas-

App.82a

ures) to the Air Freshener Disks in my work environ

ment for my Disability. First Aid Procedures for the

Air Freshener Disks on the Safety Data Sheet are not

an option in my work environment, and no protective

measures are provided by the Respondent. With

respect, how is that allowed or fair to ones Health?

Without an accommodation, or the ability to

follow my Doctors Recommendation (denied to sealing

the Air Freshener in my work environment), I returned

to work September 10, 2014. With respect, I was taken

off working trips, by Airport Employee Health Clinics

in September 2014, as well as in October, 2014, from

substantial aggravation to my Disability from the Air

Fresheners in my work environment.

I received an email from my Manager, Janie

DeVito, on October 2, 2014. In her email she states a

product change to the Air Freshener Disks. The

removal process may take up to 30 days. The email

communication was to prepared me for my next trip,

but never gave me the permission to seal the Air

Freshener Disks for a reasonable accommodation to

my Disability, if still onboard. With respect, I was

given no approval to remove the Air Freshener Disks

in my work environment. Respectfully, I continued to

report to work fit for duty, but then removed from my

work environment by Airport Employee Health Clinics,

due to injury caused from substantial aggravation by

the Air Freshener Disks still onboard. Emails have

been respectfully submitted, for the record.

With respect, I believe I have been discriminated

because of my Disability and retaliated by the Respond

ent. October, 2014, the Respondent began removing

the Air Freshener Disks from my work environment

that aggravated my medical Disability. With respect,

App.83a

I have requested backpay. The accommodation recom

mended by the Doctors for my Disability was made by

the Respondent with a product change, after returning

to work fit for duty and becoming re-injured and

disabled to perform my essential job functions due to

the Air Freshener Disks. With respect, I have been

denied March 17, 2014 to November 4, 2014, backpay.

To Note: A further accommodation was also made

after returning to work. On November 5, 2014, an

email from the Respondent (page 96 of information

respectfully submitted). I now have the permission to

throw away the Air Freshener Disk, if ever present in

my work environment. With respect, this was the

simple protective measure I was requesting permis

sion from my Manager an March 6, 2014, but was

denied.

With respect, I believe I have been discriminated

because of my Disability and retaliated by the Respond

ent. I should have never missed a day of work, March

6, 2014 to November 4, 2014. With respect to respect

ing my health, I am now financially burdened. With

respect, I have requested back pay to my Supervisor,

Kim Piszczek, in an email on May 4, 2015. With

respect, I have been denied.

RETALIATION

With respect. I believe I have been retaliated

against to 5 past denied work injury claims from prod

ucts used in my work environment, providing no

protective measures. Products used are for cleaning

and air freshening my work environment. First Aid

Procedures on the Safety Data Sheets to these prod

ucts are with respect, not an option in my work

App.84a

environment. Respectfully, no alternate First Aid Pro

cedures have been provided by the Respondent. With

respect, how is this fair to ones Health?

#10-824071 5/19/10

#14-809315 2/15/14

#14-813103 3/02/14

#14-813107 3/17/14

#14-853863 9/19/14

With respect, I am a simple person. I love people

and I love flying. I come to work fit for duty. My desire

is to simply stay at work and make a simple living.

With respect, I believe the cleaning and air freshening

products used numerous times a day are inappropriate

for the aircraft, due to the fact that First Aid pro

cedures can not be followed, it is simply not an option

in my work environment. With respect, is this fair?

Because of this fact, I have been unnecessarily injured

in my work environment. With respect. I have invited

and offered the opportunity to show the Respondent

my burden of proof, but I am denied. With respect, is

this fair?

— With respect, I have invited the Respondent to

come fly with me so I can show the injury that

takes place from the product being used in my

work environment. I am denied and refused. With

respect why, is this fair? I am injured in my work

environment.

— With respect, I requested the presence of my

Manager at the Hearing. Respectfully, I also

requested the suspect, Air Freshener Disks for

burden of proof. I am denied and refused. With

App.85a

respect why, is this fair? I am injured in my work

environment.

- With respect, the Respondent requested an Inde

pendent Medical Examination. I was in full coop

eration and respectfully requested the Respond

ent to provide the Air Freshener Disk at the

Doctors office for an Ambient Exposure Challenge

Test. I am denied and refused with a cancellation

of the examination. With respect, why, is this

fair? I am injured in my work environment.

- With respect, I have requested the Air Fresh

ener Disks and the other cleaning products at the

Meetings of July 18, 2014 and the most recent

Mandatory Meeting July 7, 2015, for insight,

clarity and understanding. Please let me show

you. With respect, I am denied and refused. With

respect, why, is this fair? I am injured in my work

environment.

With respect, I believe I have been retaliated by

my work injury claims.

With respect, I believe I have been retaliated by

email responses from Respondent, or no responses

from Respondent, to respectful emails I have sent,

trying diligently to return to work safely and as

quickly as possible.

With respect, I have submitted Emails for record

of specific details of retaliation.

RETALIATION

With respect, I believe I have been retaliated by

my Supervisor, Kim Piszczek. With respect, I have

been subjected to a punitive work environment, since

App.86a

returning to work. In 17 years, I have never been put

on a Verbal or Written Warning. After returning to

work, I have been put on both warnings.

With respect, I have been issued a Verbal Warning

for 12 months, given to me on February 11, 2015, by

my Supervisor for solicitation in nature. I provided an

email January 23, 2015, in the interest of Health and

Safety, which shared an example of a non hazardous

material product for comparison purposes, to the

hazardous products used in my work environment

with no protective measures provided by the

Respondent. Respectfully, the retaliation discrimi

nation here is where co-workers business cards are

posted in the employee room at work and products

have been sold at work in uniform with no disciplinary

action enforced. With respect, I was not in uniform,

and I was not at work. I was on my day off from work,

and simply sharing in the interest of Health and

Safety an example. I was not selling.

Respectfully, I never received a response from

anyone with regards to Health and Safety in my work

environment from the email I sent on January 23,

2015. With respect, I only received my Verbal

Warning.

On March 31, 2015, I received a Written Warning

for 12 months, for inappropriate behavior and actions. I

communicated to a Supervisor a Health and Safety

concern I have in my work environment. Documenta

tion for explanation is provided.

With respect, I disagree with both the Verbal and

Written disciplinary actions as the concern is of

Health and Safety. With respect, I was following my

obligations from my operations manual for my work

App.87a

environment. With respect and regards to the Respond

ents Corporate Safety Commitment Letter (of which I

have been given the permission to submit by my Super

visor), health or safety will not be compromise and the

letter supports a non-punitive environment for

addressing any health or safety concern.

AGE

- With Respect, I believe I have been age discrim

inated by my Manager, Janie DeVito. Janie addressed

me directly, my eligibility to the Company Early-Out

Program, October 16, 2014. This communication was

sent advising me, directly via a personal email. I

believe the Respondents interests are communicated in

emails, respectfully submitted. Respectfully, I wanted

to return to work as quickly as possible, stating with

emails submitted. Respectfully, I wanted to work,

needed to work, I missed my Career dearly. Respect

fully, I should have never missed a day of work.

With respect, I believe the Respondents interest

was not wanting me back to work at all, and that it

was time for me to retire. I am close to the age of 55

years. With respect, I am not interested in retiring

from my career in any way. Why would my Manager

want me to know I was eligible for the Company

Early-Out Program? With great respect, I love what I

do for a living. It is my career and livelihood. With

respect, I have shared this love of my career with my

Manager time over, in person and in emails. With

respect I believe, on October 16, 2014, my Manager,

Janie DeVito communicated to me directly, “the EarlyOut Program (of which you are eligible)” because of my

age. It was time for me to retire from my career.

App.88a

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

(APRIL 18, 2017)

Charge Presented to: EEOC

Agency(ies) Charge No(s): 532-2017-00265

State or Local Agency, if any:

•

Ohio Civil Rights Commission and EEOC

Name: Ms. Christina M. Alessio

Home Phone (Incl. Area Code): (330) 338-7052

Date of Birth: 1960

Street Address:

1970 N. Cleveland Massillon Rd. #589,

Bath, OH 44210

Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employ

ment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or

Local Government Agency That I Believe Discriminated

Against Me or Others. (If more than two, list under

Particulars below.)

Name: UNITED AIRLINES

Street Address:

Cleveland Hopkins Airport,

5300 Riverside Drive

Cleveland, OH 44135

No of Employees, Members: 201-500

Phone No: (216) 501-4087

Discrimination Based On:

•

Retaliation

App.89a

DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE:

• Earliest 2/24/2016

• Latest: CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARS are (if additional paper is

needed, attach extra sheet(s)):

With respect, please see 2 page notarized

statement of Particulars, also referencing

EEOC #532-2015-01733.

With respect, this is not a Release Authori

zation for Work Injury Claims with the Ohio

Industrial Commission.

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and

the State or Local Agency, if any. I will advise the

agencies if I change my address or phone number and

I will cooperate fully with them in the processing of

my charge in accordance with their procedures.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above

is true and correct.

Is/ Christina Alessio

Charging Party Signature

Date: April 18, 2017

App.90a

ATTACHMENT

I began working for the above named Respondent

on 8/13/1998, as a Flight Attendant.

On May 11, 2015,1 filed an EEOC Charge of Dis

crimination #532-2015-01733, based on Retaliation,

Disability and Age.

I believe I have been discriminated with May 11,

2015, EEOC Charge #532-2015-01733, based on Retali

ation, Disability, in violation of Title I of the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA) and

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as

amended (ADEA).

On November 30, 2016,1 filed a new EEOC Charge

of Discrimination #532-2017-00265, based upon on

going and continuing Retahation actions by Respondent,

beginning on 2/24/2016, for participation and relations

with my previously filed, and unresolved, EEOC

Charge #532-2015-01733.

Please reference the 12 page Intake Questionnaire,

for the new EEOC #532-2017-00265. With respect,

further supporting documentation has been continued

to be submitted.

Discrimination and Retaliation Particulars in brief for

#532-2017-00265:

On 2/24/2016 to date, Discrimination actions of

Retaliation by Respondent has been continuing and

ongoing. Respondent has denied multiple reasonable

requests, including sincere accommodations regard

ing family and work, as well as requested and denied

protective measures at work, to simply avoid injury.

App.91a

3 Emergency Drop Requests Denied by Respond

ent to be with my Father in Hospice Care. Three

different times, Emergency Drops were requested

and denied by my Supervisor. I had to be flown

home from a working trip August 4, 2016, just

hours before mv Father’s passing on August 5,

2016.

2/24/2016, Injured by the Respondent’s CPR Vali

dation Requirement Expectation. No Protective

Measures were provided. My Doctor’s request to

avoid injury was denied by Respondent. American

Heart Association concurs that my body weight was

not enough to fulfill my Respondents CPR

expectation. Respondent was present and witnes

sed my injury of which Respondent then put me

on a Non-Paid Leave of Absence, for 5 months.

Personal Accident Insurance and Life Insurance

Termination (referencing 2/24/16 injury). AIG

Employer Part A, on Insurance form, has been

denied to be completed fully and accurately, by

Respondent.

20 unnecessary Work Injury Claims due to no

protectives measures provided by Respondent.

Doctor recommendations to avoid injury were all

denied, resulting in work injuries.

12/13/2016 Disciplinary Action-Responding to over

exposure Hazard Communication Module Products

by following First Aid Procedures on the ground.

Put on a Verbal Warning by my Supervisor.

Irregular Operation Reports—Denied by Respond

ent, from my personal written respectful request

to please, come fly with me. Requests respectfully

communicated on Irregular Operation Reports:

App.92a

from the CEO, VP of Inflight Services, Inflight

Manager, Inflight Supervisor, all invited to please

come fly with me. Respondent has denied my

invitation. Hazard material products for cleaning

and air freshening are still being used onboard

the Aircraft by ground personnel, unknown to the

Customers. With respect, pictures of products

used onboard and continued reports, respectfully

written. Respectfully, my job responsibility is to

ensure a safe and comfortable environment.

Irregular Operation Reports—2014 Discontinued

Hazard Communication Module Product has still

been present in 2017, onboard the Aircraft.

OSHA Standards require Employers to provide

protective measures to hazard materials. No protec

tive measures are provided. And respectfully, Ingre

dients are communicated as “N/A” (Not Applicable) on

the Material Safety Data Sheet (classified information

and withheld).

With respect, the Respondent is knowingly using

the hazard material products onboard and inside the

Aircraft by providing a Hazard Communication Module,

which was required to acknowledge. Respectfully, I

believe this not only to be a violation of Federal Law,

but also very discriminating and a pure violation of

human dignity and respect for Customers and Crew

Members. Respectfully, it is the “air”, Customers and

Crew Members are breathing to the Respondents

hazard materials used to clean and air freshen

onboard and inside the Aircraft.

Respectfully, I believe the Respondent is violating

Federal Law, by cleaning and air freshening with

hazard material products used onboard and inside the

App.93a

Aircraft. Respectfully, I believe this to be a continu

ance of harmful retaliation and discrimination.

Respectful added Burden of Proof: Requested an

Independent Medical Examination by the Respond

ents Physician, to the hazard material products used

onboard the Aircraft for cleaning and air-freshening.

Respondent declined.

Is/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

State of Ohio

County of Summit

Christina Alessio sworn to and subscribed in my

presence this 17th day of April, 2017.

/s/ Alfredo D. Torres

Alfredo D. Torres

Notary Public

State of Ohio

Comm. Exp. Apr 15, 2018

App.94a

EXHIBIT D — EEOC LETTERS

MISSING “DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED WITH COMPLAINT

(DOCKET #1, ATTACHMENT #5)

(LETTER DATED: APRIL 18, 2017)

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dismissal and Notice of Rights

To:

Christina M. Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, OH 44210

From:

Cleveland Field Office

EEOC, AJC Fed Bldg

1240 E 9th St, Ste 3001

Cleveland, OH 44199

•

EEOC Charge No.: 532-2015-01733

•

EEOC Representative:

Denise DeGennaro, Investigator

Telephone No.: (216) 522-4786

THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS

CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:

• The EEOC issues the following determination:

Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable

to conclude that the information obtained estab

lishes violations of the statutes. This does not

certify that the respondent is in compliance with

App.95a

the statutes. No finding is made as to any other

issues that might be construed as having been

raised by this charge.

—NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS—

Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be

the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue

that we will send you. You may file a lawsuit against

the respondent(s) under federal law based on this

charge in federal or state court. Your lawsuit must be

filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or

your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The

time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state

law may be different.)

Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed in

federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for will

full violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This

means that backpay due for any violations that

occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file

suit may not be collectible.

On behalf of the commission

Is/ Cheryl Mabry

Cheryl Mabry

Director

April 18, 2017

(Date Mailed)

App.96a

Enclosures(s)

cc: Megan Detzner

Senior Staff Representative

UNITED AIRLINES

1200 E Algonguin Rd.

EIK Grove Village, IL 60007

App.97a

EXHIBIT D — EEOC LETTERS

MISSING “EEOC: FOIA LETTER”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED WITH COMPLAINT

(DOCKET #1, ATTACHMENT #5)

(LETTER DATED: JUNE 2, 2017)

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Philadelphia District Office

801 Market Street, Suite 1300

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3127

Toll Free: (877)-895-1802

TTY (215) 440-2610

Fax (215) 440-2606

Website: www.eeoc.gov

June 2, 2017

VIA:

Ms. Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, OH 44210

Re: FOIA No.: 530-2017-011070

Christina Alessio v. United Airlines,

532-2015-01733

Dear Ms. Alessio:

Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request,

received on May 01, 2017 is processed. Our search

began on May 01, 2017. All agency records in creation

as of May 01, 2017 are within the scope of EEOC’s

search for responsive records. The paragraph(s) checked

below apply.

App.98a

• Your request is granted in part and denied in

part. Portions not released are withheld pursu

ant to the subsections of the FOIA indicated at

the end of this letter. An attachment to this

letter explains the use of these exemptions in

more detail.

• The disclosed records are enclosed. No fee is

charged because the cost of collecting and proc

essing the chargeable fee equals or exceeds the

amount of the fee. 29 C.F.R. § 1610.15(d).

• You may contact the EEOC FOIA Public Liai

son for further assistance or to discuss any

aspect of your request. In addition, you may

contact the Office of Government Information

Services (OGIS) to inquire about the FOIA

mediation services they offer.

The contact information for OGIS is as follows:

Office of Government Information Services,

National Archives and Records Administra

tion, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park,

Maryland 20740-6001, email at oefis@nara.gov:

telephone at (202) 741-5770; toll free 1-877684-6448; or facsimile at (202) 741-5769.

The contact information for the FOIA Public

Liaison: (see contact information in above letter

head or under signature line).

• If you are not satisfied with the response to this

request, you may, administratively appeal in

writing. Your appeal must be postmarked or

electronically transmitted in 90 days from

receipt of this letter to the Office of Legal

Counsel, FOIA Programs, Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE,

App.99a

5NW02E, Washington, D.C. 20507, or by fax to

(202) 653-6034, or by email to FOIA@eeoc.

gov, https://nublicportalfoiapal.eeoc.efov/pal

Main.asnx. Your appeal will be governed by 29

C.F.R. § 1610.11.

Sincerely,

/s/ Spencer H. Lewis. Jr

Spencer H. Lewis, Jr

District Director

PHILFOIA@eeoc.gov

Applicable Sections of the Freedom of Information

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b):

Exemption Codes Used:

(b)(3), Exemption (b)(3), as amended by the FOIA

Improvement Act of 2016, states that disclosure of

information is not required for a matter specifically

prohibited from disclosure by another federal statute.,

ADA, Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA) adopts the confidentiality provisions of

sections 706(b) and 709(e) of Title VII.

1. EE0-1 Report, redacted

(b)(5), Exemption (b)(5) permits withholding docu

ments that reflect the analyses and recommendations

of EEOC personnel generated for the purpose of

advising the agency of possible action. This exemption

protects the agency’s deliberative process, and allows

App.lOOa

nondisclosure of “inter-agency or intra-agency memo

randums or letters which would not be available to a

party other than an agency in litigation with the

agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). The exemption covers

internal communications that are deliberative in

nature. National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roe

buck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975); Hinckley v. United

States, 140 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Mace v. EEOC,

37 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (E.D. Mo. 1999). The purpose of

the deliberative process privilege is to “allow agencies

freely to explore alternative avenues of action and to

engage in internal debates without fear of public

scrutiny.” Missouri ex. rel. Shorr v. United States

Corps of Eng’rs., 147 F.3d 708, 710 (8th Cir. 1998).

Recommendation For Closure, redacted dis

missal/closure options and specific informa

tion in support of recommendation/decision

PCHP Assessment Form, redacted assessment

categories, 3 pages, 7/22/15

Charge Detail Inquiry Form, redacted proc

essing codes and/or attributes; redacted

investigator’s notes 11/22/16 and 1/19/17

For a full description of the exemption codes used

please find them at the following URL: https://publicnortalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.asnx

This response was prepared by [Sylvia Williams],

[Paralegal Specialist], who may be reached at [215440-2682].

App.lOla

EXHIBIT E — EMAILS

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED WITH COMPLAINT

(DOCKET #1, ATTACHMENT #6)

U.S. SENATOR’S RESPONSE

(JULY 22, 2015)

Subject: Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown

From: Sherrod Brown

(SenatorBrown@brown.senate.gov)

To: tinaalessio@yahoo.com;

Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:12 PM

Dear Ms. Alessio:

Thank you for getting in touch with my office

regarding hazardous materials used in cleaning

supplies upon commercial flights. I appreciate your

bringing this issue to my attention.

I have passed your concerns along to the legislative

assistant in my office who monitors transportation

and health issues. I will keep your thoughts in mind

should this issue come before the Senate.

If you require any other assistance, please call my

office at 202-224-2315. Thank you again for being in

touch with me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown

United States Senator

App.l02a

Stay connected with what’s happening in Congress.

care about the most: http://brown.senate.gov/newsletter/

landing

App.l03a

U.S. CONGRESSWOMAN’S RESPONSE

(JULY 31, 2015)

Subject: Response from Marcia L. Fudge

From: Rep. Marcia L. Fudge

(oh 11 -wyr@mail .house. gov)

To:

tinaalessio@yahoo.com;

Date: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:49 AM

You are receiving this letter because you recently

wrote to Marcia L. Fudge.

July 31, 2015

Tina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd

#589

Bath, OH 44210-5367

Dear Tina Alessio,

Thank you for contacting me to concerning the

presence of hazardous materials on airlines. As your

Representative, your thoughts are important to me,

and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your

concerns about this issue.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has

implemented a program that allows airlines to

voluntarily admit when violations of the Hazardous

Materials Regulations (HMR) occur. Both US airlines

and foreign airlines that operate in the US certified

under 14 CFR parts 119 and 129 respectively have the

option to participate. Under this program airlines may

voluntarily disclose when they have not complied with

hazardous materials standards—without risk of

punishment—and the FAA uses that data to prevent

more non-compliance. The FAA then helps that airline

App.l04a

to correct violations providing guidance, oversight,

and support.

As your Representative, rest assured, as legislation

related to hazardous materials on airlines is considered

by Congress I will be sure to keep your thoughts in

mind.

Your needs and concerns are important to me, and

I thank you again for taking an active role in the legis

lative process. Democracy works best when we stay in

touch, so I invite you to sign-up for email updates at

fudge.congressnewsletter.net. You can also get latebreaking news at facebook.com/RepMarciaLFudge

and twitter.com/RepMarciaFudge.

If you should need any additional information or

assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my D.C.

office at (202) 225-7032.

Sincerely,

/s/ Marcia L. Fudge

Marcia L. Fudge

Member of Congress

App.l05a

AFA-CWA SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY’S RESPONSE

(FEBRUARY 28, 2017)

Subject: 2014-2017 Flight Attendant Hazard Commu

nication Modules

From: Michael Hickey (mchickey@unitedafa.org)

To:

tinaalessio@yahoo.com;

Cc:

lbarnett@unitedafa.org;

Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:33 PM

Dear Ms. Alessio:

I am responding to your February 24, 2017 email

addressed to Lynn Barnett, CAL-AFA MEC Grievance

Chair. It is my understanding from your email that

you are requesting the assistance of AFA-CWA in

obtaining a copy of what you describe as United’s

2014-2017 Hazard Communication Modules. Any and

all such Modules, documents and materials would be

the property of United and/or United’s vendors and

you need to direct your request to the appropriate

United management personnel. As you seek these

materials in conjunction with work injury claims

pending before the Ohio Industrial Commission, such

matters are outside the scope of AFA-CWA’s represen

tation of you. If you have a private attorney

representing you regarding your work injury claims, I

would suggest that you have your personal attorney

contact United with your request. However, AFACWA will not be able to assist you in this matter.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards.

Michael C. Hickey

Senior Staff Attorney AFA-CWA

App.l06a

INFLIGHT MANAGER’S RESPONSE

(JUNE 7, 2017)

Devito, Janie

Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 6:59 AM

To:

Alessio, Tina

Cc:

Piszczek, Kimberly; Stanley, Diane; Sturchio,

Mary

Tina,

Thank you for your e-mail. As we have discussed

previously, the EEOC has dismissed both charges. That

is the final disposition to this matter.

Regards

Janie

---- Original Message----From: Alessio, Tina

Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 8:22 PM

To:

Devito, Janie; Piszczek, Kimberly

Cc:

Jarrell, Jayson; Alessio, Tina

Subject: EEOC Charges Resolution

June 6, 2017

Dear Janie and Kim,

Good day to you.

Respectfully, I have been communicated to do my

reaching out, with you regarding my 2 EEOC charges.

Respectfully, I would like to reach out with you for

the opportunity to work together in a meeting setting

to resolve my 2 EEOC charges.

Respectfully, the EEOC has dismissed both

charges, and is giving me the right to be heard in Court.

App.l07a

With great respect, may I please have the oppor

tunity to work together in hope of a resolution?

Look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Christina Alessio

Sent from my iPhone

App.l08a

FOLLOW-UP WITH CLEVELAND PRESIDENT OF

ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

(JUNE 29, 2017)

Alessio, Tina

Sent: Thusday, June 29, 2017 11:04 AM

To:

jarrell@unitedafa.org

Cc:

Alessio, Tina

June 29, 2017

Dear Jayson,

Thank you for being apart of some topics of concern

yesterday, that I went over with my Supervisor, Kim

Piszczek.

With great respect and to clarify for the record the

following topics were communicated and your notes

were provided. Thank you.

Attendance:

12 Active Months: 2 sick calls

Verbal Warning and conversation, expires

December 13, 2017

Irregular Operations Reports (IOR’s with no

response)

Requesting a response, and inquiring what I

should do about it.

#59384 3/24/17, #60930 4/14/17, #61871 4/29/

17, #63585 5/21/17, #63618 5/22/17, #66479

6/24/17

Kim-I will pull for you, but I can’t respond.

2014 Hazard Communication Module: (Inquiring)

Tina-You had said they are sanction products

Kim—Anything onboard is approved

App.l09a

Kim—Someone does approve them/makes

decision

What is the Company providing the Flight

Attendants to protect against

Kim-We’ve been through this

Kim—You’ve gotten the answers before

Tina-The products are still there

Kim-You’ve been told they aren’t harmful

Kim—I don’t have any further information for

you

Can I print my IOR’S to send to my United email

Kim—yes

The EEOC Reports are not personal, but that I

am following to the best of my ability the Policies

and Procedures to safety and security issues—see

something, say something.

Thank you for your time yesterday, Jayson. Please

verify and confirm when you get a chance.

Sincerely,

Tina

App.llOa

EXHIBIT F — LETTERS

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED WITH COMPLAINT

(DOCKET #1, ATTACHMENT #7)

U S. SENATOR

(MAY 25, 2017)

UNITED STATES SENATE

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3505

Sherrod Brown

Ohio

Committees: Agriculture, Nutrition, And Forestry

Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs

Finance

Veterans’ Affairs

May 25, 2017

Ms. Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd., #:589

Bath, OH 44210

Dear Ms. Alessio:

Your concerns were forwarded to the Federal

Aviation Administration and the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration and both agencies have

responded. Copies of those letters are attached. You

may wish to contact an attorney to determine if there

is a legal avenue within a court of law by which you

may further address these concerns.

App.llla

Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you

are experiencing difficulties with any other federal

matter.

Sincerely,

Office of U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown

App.ll2a

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)

(JUNE 2, 2016)

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

800 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

T 202-2674998 F 202-267-5191

To: John Patterson

Company: Senator Sherrod Brown

Phone: (216) 522-7272

Fax: (216) 522-2239

From: Keisha Rene Dyson

Title: Program and Management Analyst

Date: June 2, 2016

Pages w/cover:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is in

receipt of your letter dated November 12, 2015 on behalf

of Christina Alessio regarding hazardous materials

aboard aircraft and work injuries due to hazardous

materials.

Unfortunately, this is not an FAA issue. In order

to ensure that your concerns are addressed, I am

forwarding your inquiry to the appropriate agency/office

at the following address:

U.S. Department of Labor

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Room Number N3626

Washington DC 20210

App.ll3a

I am confident you will receive a prompt response

to your inquiry.

If I can be of further assistance, please call me at

the above telephone number.

App.ll4a

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)

(SEPTEMBER 19, 2016)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

230 South Dearborn Street, Room 3244

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-2220

The Honorable Sherrod Brown

United States Senate

801 West Superior Ave., Suite 1400

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Senator Brown:

Your letter initially sent to the Federal Aviation

Administration’s Ms. Holly Harris, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs

was forwarded to the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) for a response. Your original

letter provided correspondence from your constituent

Ms. Christina Alessio of Bath, Ohio. Ms. Alessio, a

United Airlines, Inc. (United) flight attendant, is con

cerned as to the laws forbidding carrying hazardous

materials aboard aircraft and how this is reconciled

with the use of cleaners and air freshener products that

may contain harmful chemicals or irritants onboard

commercial aircraft. Please excuse the delay in the

response.

As you may know, OSHA has limited authority

over the working conditions of cabin crew members

while they are onboard aircraft in operation. Under

this limited authority, a few of OSHA’s standards may

App.ll5a

be applied, including the Hazard Communication

Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200, to the working

conditions of cabin crew members (but not flight deck

crew) on aircraft in operation. While OSHA does not

have a standard that regulates general indoor air

quality, workers potentially exposed to cleaning or air

freshener products that were used in the aircraft in a

duration and frequency more than what a typical con

sumer would use the cleaning or air freshener pro

ducts, and thus exposed to a potential health hazard,

must be included in their employer’s hazard commu

nication program. The employer’s hazard communica

tion program must include maintaining and making

available safety data sheets, training employees on the

hazards of the chemicals to which they are actually or

potentially exposed, as well as identifying any

appropriate protective measures, such as gloves for

hand protection.

OSHA’s Cleveland Area Office has previously

reached out to Ms. Alessio to discuss her concerns

related to her injury claims. OSHA also reviewed

United Airline’s response to a health and safety

complaint which was handled by our phone/fax process,

safety data sheets, and the medical opinion from her

physician. From a review of the materials presented

to OSHA, we could neither substantiate nor disprove

whether her potential exposures to the listed producttypes caused or aggravated her health concerns. In

addition, OSHA does not have a generic medical

surveillance standard, and therefore, cannot require

that her employer provide her with an “independent

medical examination.” OSHA’s medical surveillance

requirements are contained in its substance-specific

App.ll6a

health standards, such as benzene, cadmium, and

formaldehyde.

Ms. Alessio’s employer, United, remains respon

sible for providing a safe and healthy working environ

ment for its workers, and the need to take reasonable

steps to find safer alternative products if necessary.

With regard to Ms. Alessio’s concerns relating to her

injury claims, these are outside of OSHA’s jurisdiction

and would need to be addressed by the Ohio Industrial

Commission.

OSHA will now consider this matter closed. Thank

you for your interest in safety and health.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ken Nishivama Atha

Ken Nishiyama Atha

Regional Administrator

cc:

Howard Eberts, Area Director,

Cleveland Area Office

CCU #806339

App.ll7a

HEALTH AND WAGES OVERVIEW

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED WITH COMPLAINT

(DOCKET #1, ATTACHMENT #10)

EEOC #532-2015-01733 filed Mav 11. 2015

EEOC #532-2017-00265 filed November 30. 2016

THE FACTS:

1998

Hired in Good Health

2003

Diagnoised [sic “Diagnosed”] with a

Disability

2012

$41.533

2013

$57.975 ($16.442 Increase over 2012)

Protected my Health—From Respondents Air

Freshener Products

(15 Years of Service)

2014

$30,541 ($27.434 Decrease under

2013)

Protective Measures-Hazard Communication

Module: Denied by Respondent protection to

Hazard Communication Material Products

(including Air Freshener Product)

(16 Years of Service)

2015

$50.385 ($19.844 Increase over 2014)

Protected my Health-Solid Air Freshener

Disk discontinued: Permission by Respondent

protection to Hazard Communication Material

Product (Solid Air Freshener Disk)

App.ll8a

(17 Years of Service)

2016

$36.416 ($13,969 Decrease under

2015)

Protective Measures — Denied by Respondent

protection to CPR Expectation Validation with

ability to avoid injury. Resulted in spraining

both hands and both wrists. Denied by

Respondent protection to follow First Aid

Procedures on the ground, to Hazard Clean

ing Product.

(18 Years of Service. $62.00 hourly pay)

App.ll9a

PLAINTIFF FILING,

APPEAL LETTER REQUEST TO THE

EEOC FOR REDACTED FOIA INFORMATION

(DOCKET 11)

(AUGUST 21, 2017)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plaintiff,

UNITED AIRLINES,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-CV-01426

Before: Sara LIOI, Judge.,

Kathleen B. BURKE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Appeal Letter Request to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission for

Redacted FOIA Information

Equal Employment Opportunity Commis

sion Reference Letter Filed July 7, 2017,

with, Complaint: Exhibit D

Is/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

App.l20a

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do herby certify that on August 21, 2017, a copy

of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

“Appeal Letter Request”, was filed at the Federal

Courthouse, United States District Court for the

Northern District of Ohio, with the Clerk of Courts.

Respectfully, two copies were also served by

Certified Mail on August 21, 2017, to the nine collec

tive “Individual” Defendant’s Attorneys:

Natalie M. Stevens (0079963)

Heather M. Huffman (0078362)

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

127 Public Square, Suite 4100

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

With respect and for reference, the list of nine

“Individual Defendants” are as followed:

United Airlines, Inc.

Mr. Oscar Munoz

Mr. Scott Kirby

Mr. Robert Milton

Mr. Brett Hart

Mr. Sam Risoli

Ms. Mary Sturchio

Ms. Janie DeVito

Ms. Kim Piszczek

Respectfully,

Is/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

Plaintiff and pro se

App.l21a

APPEAL LETTER REQUEST

(AUGUST 21, 2017)

Office of Legal Counsel

FOIA Programs

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, NE

5NW02E

Washington, D.C. 20507

Re: FOIA No. 530-2017-011070

Christina Alessio v. United Airlines,

532-2015-01733/532-2017-00265

Respectful Appeal Letter Request: Redacted FOIA

Information

August 21, 2017

To whom it may concern,

With respect, the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission wrote a letter on June 2, 2017, providing

information regarding my respectful request for my

complete FOIA Administrative Files.

Respectfully in the letter, a few statement boxes

were marked with an “X”, which state:

•

“Your request is granted in part and denied in

part. Portions not released are withheld pursu

ant to the subsections of the FOIA indicated at

the end of this letter. An attachment to this

letter explains the use of these exemptions in

more detail.”

•

“If you are not satisfied with the response to

this request, you may administratively appeal

in writing. Your appeal must be postmarked or

App.l22a

electronically transmitted in 90 days from

receipt of this letter to the Office of Legal

Counsel, FOIA Programs, Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE,

5NW02E, Washington, D.C. 20507, or by fax to

(202) 653-6034, or by email to FOIA@eeoc.gov.

https://publirportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.

aspx. Your appeal will be governed by 29 C.F.R.

1610.11.”

Respectfully upon receipt of this letter, I am

requesting within the 90 day period, an attempt to

receive my complete FOIA Administrative Files. With

respect and in specific to:

“1. EEO-1 Report, redacted”

(Information I believe to be understood as

redacted and withheld from my EEOC

Administrative Files)

Recommendation For Closure, redacted dis

missal/closure options and specific informa

tion in support of recommendation/decision

PCHIP Assessment Form, redacted assess

ment categories, 3 pages, 7/22/15

Charge Detail Inquiry Form, redacted proc

essing codes and/or attributes; redacted Inves

tigator’s notes 11/22/16 and 1/19/17

Respectfully, the redacted information is being

requested as evidence necessary to provide the truth,

the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

With respect, a copy of the letter dated June 2,

2017, from the Equal Employment Opportunity Com

mission (Philadelphia District Office), is enclosed with

App.l23a

my Appeal Letter Request for reference and accuracy

to the record.

Respectfully, the same letter from the EEOC was

need be, respectfully submitted to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in

search for resolution. (Exhibit: D, filed with Complaint)

What has me most concerned with the denial to

receive the redacted information within my FOIA

Administrative Files are the following words:

“redacted dismissal/closure options and spe

cific information in support of recommenda

tion/decision” With respect, does this have

anything to do with my 2/24/16, Continuing

Qualification CPR work injury of spraining

both my hands and wrists at the Defendant’s

Training Center, of which could have been

avoided and the work injury claim was

disallowed? (Reference: Claim #16-807292,

Court Reported and of Public Record)

“fear of public scrutiny” Respectfully, I believe

the truth is what the Public only wants to

hear.

With respect, if there is worry or “fear of

public scrutiny”, then with all “ways” and by

all “means”, regarding specific “sources and

methods” present today, please let’s make it

right. Make it right with transparency.

Respectfully in terms of the Aircraft Cabin air

quality, transparency is paramount. With respect, no

more secrets to the products used to clean and air

freshen the aircraft cabin. With respect, why have we

not been transparent all along to the Global Air

App.l24a

Traveling Public? Respectfully, as this letter is written

today the list of ingredients used for air freshening the

aircraft cabin are still kept secret, and not

transparent. And respectfully, the sanitizer spray is a

Health Hazard Level 2 = Moderate. With respect,

what is the reason, motive or intent for this?

Respectfully, I believe the Healthcare and Safety

for all Crew Member’s, is at the highest level of dis

crimination with respect, to the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission.

And with respect to air quality, I believe the

Aircraft Cabin treatment with Healthcare and Safety

of the whole Global Air Traveling Public is unfair and

in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 5124. Respectfully, this is

about “chemical cleaning and air freshening products”

treatment, with no preventive measures.

With respect, this should be just the opposite.

Respectfully, all about Healthcare and Safety preven

tion, not the chemical treatment. Please, can we at

least be transparent with the list of chemicals being

used by choice, in the Aircraft Cabin of which all

Customers and Crew Member’s are breathing?

With the utmost respect, may there be zero toler

ance for any “ways and means”, “sources and methods”

of reasoning for wrongdoing. “Transparency of all

Products used in the Aircraft Cabin” seem to be the

most logic, common sense, dignified and respectful

“Agreement of Service” to provide for the whole Global

Air Traveling Public, whose Healthcare and Safety

matters.

With respect, might I add the use of Mother Earth’s

God given resources are imminent. With the greatest

respect, the use of “air freshening with chemicals” is a

App.l25a

direct Healthcare and Safety assault on us all, and

Mother Earth.

Respectfully, chemical substance abuse isn’t always

voluntary. And with respect I believe, to intentionally

harm someone is a crime. It is time we changed and

look to Mother Earth and her resources, please.

Respectfully, this is about Healthcare and Safety.

With respect, profit is meant to be made anywhere

and everywhere with Mother Earth’s resources, she is

our outdoor environment. We need to care for her as

much as we should care about our indoor environment,

the Aircraft Cabin.

Respectfully, the Healthcare and Safety decisions

are made by choice to use “chemical cleaning and air

freshening products” in the Aircraft Cabin. With

respect, I believe this is unhealthy and unsafe treat

ment, with short and long lasting negative effects to

the whole Global Air Traveling Public who resides in

the Aircrafts particular and unique environment.

Respectfully, why are we doing this?

Please accept my request to allow and release any

and all redacted information from my FOIA Adminis

trative Files with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission for open, honest, direct and transparent

communication.

Sincerely,

Is/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

App.l26a

P.S. This letter will be respectfully submitted to the

United States District Court for the Northern District

of Ohio and the Defendant’s Attorneys, for insight,

clarity and understanding, as per my respectful Letter

Appeal Request for the redacted FOIA Information.

App.l27a

PLAINTIFF FILING,

SHORT LIST OF 79 IRREGULAR OPERATION

REPORTS WITH RESPONSES

(DOCKET 14)

(AUGUST 29, 2017)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plaintiff,

UNITED AIRLINES

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-CV-01426

Before: Sara LIOI, Judge.,

Kathleen B. BURKE, Magistrate Judge.

1.)

Plaintiff Respectfully Submitting Short List

of 79 Irregular Operation Reports since

2014, Including Defendants’ Validation and

Answers to Reports. (Reference Complaint

07/07/17: Exhibit H)

2.) Respectful Response to Answers

/s/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

App.l28a

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on August 29, 2017, a copy

of l). Short List of 79 Irregular Operation Reports since

2014, including Defendants' validation and answers to

reports. 2). Respectful response to answers", was pled at

the Federal Courthouse, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Ohio, with the Clerk of

Courts.

Respectfully, two copies were also served by Cer

tified Mall on August 29, 2017, to the nine collective

"Individual" Defendant's Attorneys:

Natalie M. Stevens (0079963)

Heather M. Huffman (0078362)

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

127 Public Square, Suite 4100

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

With respect and for reference, the list of nine

"Individual Defendants" are as followed:

United Airlines, Inc.

Mr. Oscar Munoz

Mr. Scott Kirby

Mr. Robert Milton

Mr. Brett Hart

Mr. Sam Risoli

Ms. Mary Sturchio

Ms. Janie DeVito

Mr. Kim Piszczek

Respectfully,

Is/ Christina Alessio

Christina Alessio

Plaintiff and pro se

App.l29a

IOR 61871

Action Item Responses

Action Item Number: 86378

Action Item Last Editor: Hoopii Ikaika

Answered Date: Aug 4, 2017

•

Question

At your earliest convenience. Please respond to

this IOR.

•

Action Item Response

With respect the lavatory disk you are referencing

was removed in 2014 because we changed to a more

effective product and process and not due to any proven

harmful properties to passenger or employees. Airport

operations and tech ops have removed this item from

any ordering catalogue and removed it from any tech

ops job cards that required its use. We have also

confirmed with the manufacturer that they no longer

distribute this product to United Airlines any longer.

Attachments

IOR 61871 4/29/17

Respectful Plaintiffs’ Response to Answer:

1. Lavatory disks are a solid chemical air fresh

ener, and the liquid chemical air freshener spray which

was a part of the 2014 Hazard Communication Module.

is still required to use by ground personnel onboard

the aircraft.

App.l30a

2. Lavatory disks were not completely removed in

2014, please reference short list of Irregular Operation

Reports: 2014-2017.

3. More effective product (replacing the lavatory

disk) is a chemical fragrance hand soap, which still

has list of ingredients, including fragrance: Not

Applicable, with First Aid Procedures not an option.

4. The Manufacturer states with the air freshening

products: ‘This information contained herein is based

on data considered accurate. However, no warranty is

expressed or implied regarding the accuracy of these

data or the results to be obtained from the use thereof.

(Redacted Company Name) assumes no responsibility

for personal injury or property damage to vendors,

users or third parties caused by the material. Such

vendors or users assume all risks associated with the

use of the material.”

5. Please come fly with me.

App.l31a

IOR 63585

Risk Assessment

Risk Rank: 19

Risk Level: IB

Description: Limited Risk

Action Item Responses

Action Item Number: 86379

Action Item Last Editor: Hoopii Ikaika

Answered Date: Aug 15, 2017

•

Question

•

Action Item Response

Respectfully the obsoleted product had been

removed from the cabin cleaning ordering system in 2014

because we moved to a better product and system for

updating the fragrance in the lavatories and not

because it was deemed harmful to passengers or

employees. Unbeknownst to our cabin team this was

not removed from a job card in maintenance. Since

finding that out in early 2016 it has been removed

from the maintenance ordering system as well as the

manufacturer was notified to remove any orders for

United Airlines. Communications have been sent out.

Attachments

App.l32a

IOR 63585 5/21/17

Respectful Plaintiffs’ Response to Answer:

1. Lavatory disks (obsoleted product) are solid

chemical air fresheners. Liquid chemical air freshener

sprays and part of the 2014 Hazard Communication

Module, is still required to spray onboard the aircraft.

With respect, why?

2. Lavatory disk (obsoleted product) was not com

pletely removed in 2014, please reference short list of

irregular Operation Reports: 2014-2017.

3. The Manufacturer states with air freshening

products: “This Information contained herein is based

on data considered accurate. However, no warranty is

expressed or implied regarding the accuracy of these

data or the results to be obtained from the use thereof.

(Redacted Company Name) assumes no responsibility

for personal injury or property damage to vendors,

users or third parties caused by the material. Such

vendors or users assume all risks associated with the

use of the material.”

4. Please come fly with me.

App.l33a

IOR 63618

Risk Assessment

Risk Rank: 19

Risk Level: IB

Description: Limited Risk

Action Item Responses

Action Item Number: 86380

Action Item Last Editor: Hoopii Ikaika

Answered Date: Aug 8, 2017

•

Question

At your earliest opportunity, please respond to

this IOR.

•

Action Item Response

Thank you for your feedback. Our Cabin cleaner/

disinfectan

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.