Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rafael Paredes, Petitioner v. United Airlines, Inc., et al.

No.

25-714-

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FILED

AUG 1 8 2025

Rafael Paredes,

Petitioner

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

V.

United Airlines, Inc.,

Respondent

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals

For The Third Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Rafael Paredes, Pro Se

800 Bronx River Road,

Apt. A31

Yonkers, NY 10708

(917)312-5831

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Federal anti-retaliation protections prohibit

adverse treatment in response to protected activity,

particularly where comparable conduct by others goes

unpunished.

Whether an employer violates federal anti­

retaliation laws by disciplining the sole employee who

reported workplace discrimination, while failing to

discipline other employees who engaged in similar or

more egregious conduct.

2. Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment

requires courts to fairly evaluate all properly

presented arguments and evidence.

Whether the actions of the district and appellate

courts deprived Petitioner of his constitutional right

to a fair and impartial trial, in violation of the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by

excluding key evidence and failing to address

substantial issues raised by Petitioner.

3. Title VII prohibits retaliatory termination following

protected activity when the action lacks legitimate

justification and deters future reporting.

Whether the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII

prohibit terminating an employee shortly after

engaging in protected activity, where the termination

lacks legitimate justification and chills further

reporting of discrimination.

4. Pro se litigants are entitled to fair consideration of

properly filed motions, especially where the evidence

relates directly to constitutional claims.

Whether a federal appellate court may disregard a

pro se litigant’s properly submitted motion to

supplement the record with critical medical

evidence—without explanation—thereby violating

the litigant’s constitutional right to due process.

iii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the

cover page.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

Rafael Paredes v. United Airlines Inc., No. 21-17091

(JXN)(JSA), U.S. District Court for the District of

New Jersey. Order dated Feb. 6, 2023.

Rafael Paredes v. United Airlines Inc., No. 21-17091

(JXN)(JSA), U.S. District Court for the District of

New Jersey. Order dated Mar. 18, 2024.

Rafael Paredes v. United Airlines Inc., No. 24-1585,

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

Judgment entered Dec. 4, 2024.

Rafael Paredes v. United Airlines Inc., No. 24-1585,

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Order

dated Dec. 17, 2024.

Rafael Paredes v. United Airlines Inc., No. 24-1585,

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Order

dated May 29, 2025.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

iii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

iv

RELATED PROCEEDINGS......................

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

vi

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND SATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

4

CONCLUSION

15

APPENDIX

la

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White,

548 U.S. 53 (2006)............................................... 8

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,

556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009).....................................4

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970).......... 4, 9

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)..........7

Halprin v. McCulloch,

995 F.2d 1033, 1034-35 (11th Cir. 1993)........ 5

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) .... 7

Monaghan v. Worldpay US, Inc.,

955 F.3d 855 (11th Cir. 2020)............................ 9

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,

339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)..................................... 8

Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992)............. 6

Thigpen v. Roberts, 468 U.S. 27, 30 (1984)................. 5

United States v. Zichettello,

208 F.3d 72, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2000)......................6

vi

OPINIONS BELOW

The District Court’s opinions are unpublished and

attached as Appendix A and B. The opinions of the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit are

unpublished and attached as Appendix C, D, E, F and

I.

JURISDICTION

The Court of Appeals entered judgment on

December 4, 2024. A timely petition for rehearing was

denied on May 29, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV:

All persons born or naturalized in the United

States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are

citizens of the United States and of the State wherein

they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of

citizens of the United States; nor shall any State

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law; nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-3(a):

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an

employer to discriminate against any of his employees

or applicants for employment, for an employment

1

agency, or joint labor-management committee

controlling apprenticeship or other training or

retraining, including on—the-job training programs,

to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor

organization to discriminate against any member

thereof or applicant for membership, because he has

opposed any practice made an unlawful employment

practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a

charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any

manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing

under this subchapter.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I, Petitioner Rafael Paredes, served as a Customer

Service Supervisor and certified Ground Security

Coordinator at United Airlines. During my

employment, I reported multiple instances of

discrimination, retaliation, and unsafe practices.

These reports—protected activity under federal law—

triggered escalating retaliation that ultimately led to

my termination.

This case arises from my claims of unlawful

retaliation and age discrimination. Despite a clean

employment record and consistent efforts to report

misconduct, I was subjected to disparate treatment,

adverse actions, and wrongful termination. I contend

that my dismissal was pretextual and unlawfully

motivated.

Worsening the harm, the judicial process itself

became compromised. Throughout litigation, I

encountered procedural irregularities, exclusion of

key evidence, and denial of fundamental rights—most

notably, my right to a fair opportunity to be heard.

Although the Court of Appeals granted my motion to

2

supplement the record, it later disregarded that

evidence without explanation.

The court also improperly granted a hybrid

“confidentiality/strike” motion filed by Respondent.

Though facially meritless as a confidentiality claim,

the motion was reframed in bad faith as a motion to

strike—clearly designed to suppress critical material.

Rather than rejecting this tactic, the appellate court

adopted it, excluding essential documents without

addressing their content or relevance.

These judicial actions raise serious concerns about

bias, due process violations, and the failure to review

evidence essential to adjudicating my claims.

This case stems from events beginning in late

2014, when I suffered a sudden and severe medical

condition that caused internal eye bleeding and

temporary blindness. I was forced to take extended

medical leave and undergo multiple surgeries.

Upon returning, I was unexpectedly rated “Off

Track”

without

explanation

or

supporting

documentation. I believe this rating was in retaliation

for using medical leave protected under the Family

and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). After internal efforts

to address this issue failed, I filed a complaint with

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC)—a step that triggered severe retaliation and

devastated my career and personal life.

I retained a copy of my Performance and Progress

Review (PPR) for that year. It originally reflected an

“Off Track” rating, with narrative explanations under

each performance category. After I engaged in

protected activity, the overall rating was crossed out

and altered—while the category evaluations remained

unchanged. This manipulation is plainly visible and

strongly supports my claim that United Airlines

3

retroactively altered

unlawful retaliation.

formal

records

to

justify

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I. The Decision Below Violates the Fourteenth

Amendment Right to Due Process

The Court of Appeals’ decision—and the District

Court proceedings that preceded it—reflect a

troubling disregard for the core protections of the

Fourteenth Amendment. I was denied a fair

opportunity to present key evidence central to my

claims.

This constitutional failure arose from the lower

courts’ mishandling of Respondent’s hybrid motion,

improperly filed under the guise of confidentiality and

simultaneously presented as a motion to strike or seal.

Despite clear procedural and substantive defects, the

motion was granted without explanation, resulting in

the exclusion of critical evidence supporting my

retaliation claim—evidence showing that adverse

actions occurred only after I engaged in protected

activity.

This was not a mere oversight, but a deprivation of

due process. It violated the principle established in

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970), which

guarantees a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The

courts’ silence on these procedural irregularities and

their failure to justify the exclusion of evidence

contradict the standard of fairness articulated in

Caperton v. A T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876

(2009).

Both courts were informed that discovery had

yielded critical documentary evidence refuting the

Respondent’s claims. Yet while Respondent failed to

4

produce any records of poor performance, my evidence

was excluded outright. This unequal treatment denied

me fair adjudication and created the appearance of

judicial bias and injustice.

The record reflects not only legal errors but also a

broader appearance of bias and unequal treatment,

undermining public trust in the courts and eroding

confidence in the fairness of the judicial process.

The Court of Appeals’ decision—and the District

Court proceedings that preceded it—reflect a

troubling disregard for the core protections

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. I was

deprived of a fair opportunity to present evidence

supporting my claims. My motions to supplement the

record were either ignored or denied without

explanation,

despite

precedent

supporting

supplementation where necessary to ensure fairness.

Other courts—including this Court—have, in

extraordinary cases, permitted supplementation of

the record when doing so was essential to protect a

party’s constitutional rights or ensure a complete and

fair adjudication. See Thigpen v. Roberts, 468 U.S. 27,

30 (1984) (“[T]he record must reflect all relevant facts

necessary to resolve the issues presented.”).

While the Supreme Court generally limits review

to the record below, it has recognized that procedural

fairness may require lower courts to consider

supplemental material where justice demands it. The

Third Circuit’s refusal to consider such material

here—despite granting leave—stands in direct

contrast to these principles and warrants this Court’s

review.

Halprin v. McCulloch, 995 F.2d 1033, 1034—35

(11th Cir. 1993) — The Eleventh Circuit emphasized

that courts must “construe pro se filings liberally,”

and allowed supplementation of the record to ensure

5

fairness, particularly where doing so would prevent

manifest injustice.

United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72, 98-99 (2d

Cir. 2000) — The Second Circuit allowed

consideration of evidence outside the formal record

where it was relevant and necessary to avoid unjust

results.

Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) —

Although addressing appellate procedure more

broadly, the Supreme Court stressed that technical

rules should not be used to unfairly penalize pro se

litigants whose filings clearly communicate their

claims.

II. The Lower Courts’ Refusal to Consider the

Supplemented Record Conflicts with Established

Precedent

I submitted a motion to supplement the record

with critical medical evidence demonstrating the

severe mental health harm I suffered as a direct result

of the respondent’s retaliatory actions. Despite the

importance of this evidence, the United States Court

of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied my motion

without any meaningful explanation. This denial

deprived me of my rights to present evidence and the

opportunity to fully present my case.

The Supreme Court has recognized that appellate

courts must allow supplementation of the record when

critical evidence was omitted due to circumstances

beyond the petitioner’s control, to ensure a fair and

complete review of the case.

In my situation, the Court of Appeals denied my

motion to supplement the record with medical records

and other essential documents that directly relate to

my claims of retaliation and mental health harm. This

6

denial conflicts with established Supreme Court

precedent safeguarding the right to present a full and

fair case.

By refusing to consider this vital evidence, the

lower court violated the principles of due process

guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and

undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

This Court has long recognized that pro se litigants

must be afforded a fair opportunity to present their

claims. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

(1972). Consistent with this principle, other circuits

routinely permit supplementation of the record when

doing so serves the interests of justice—particularly

when critical evidence has been omitted through no

fault of the litigant. Despite filing multiple motions to

supplement the record with critical evidence, the

Court either ignored these requests or left them

pending without substantive rulings. The only

response was a limited time extension, which did not

address the merits of the motions. This lack of action

effectively denied me the opportunity to present

essential evidence, undermining the fairness of the

proceedings.

The respondent’s motion—ambitiously framed as

both a confidentiality request and an alternative

motion to strike—was procedurally improper and

plainly designed to circumvent safeguards. Rather

than rejecting this tactic, the courts approved it

without requiring clarification or compliance. As a

result, I was denied the ability to rely on evidence

already accepted into the record. This strategy

rewarded procedural gamesmanship and effectively

allowed one party to suppress unfavorable facts

without legal justification. As emphasized in Liteky v.

United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), even the

7

appearance of judicial partiality undermines

confidence in the justice system.

The excluded evidence was not peripheral—it was

the foundation of my retaliation claim. By omitting it,

the courts distorted the factual narrative and disposed

of my claims without confronting their substance.

This harmed not only my case but the integrity of the

process itself.

“Due process is not a mere formality; it is a

substantive guarantee ensuring that all litigants,

especially those without counsel, receive equal

treatment under the law and a meaningful

opportunity to be heard.” See Mullane v. Central

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).

Here, the lower courts denied my motion to

supplement the record with critical evidence, thereby

foreclosing my ability to fully present my case. This

refusal constitutes a fundamental violation of my

constitutional due process rights and demands this

Court’s immediate review.

III. The Courts Ignored Precedent on Retaliatory

Adverse Actions

This Court held in Burlington Northern & Santa

Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006), that

retaliatory conduct includes any action that would

deter a reasonable employee from engaging in

protected activity. My termination was the

culmination of a sequence of adverse and retaliatory

actions I faced after engaging in protected activity and

clearly meets this standard. Nevertheless, the lower

courts applied a stricter and incorrect threshold—

ignoring binding precedent—and denied me relief.

8

IV. Evidence of Retaliatory Disparate Treatment

Was Disregarded

I possess clear evidence that similarly situated

employees who engaged in comparable conduct were

not disciplined. Despite this, I was never afforded an

opportunity by the lower courts to present this critical

evidence.

This disregard not only denies the fundamental

right to a fair hearing but also compounds the

violation of my due process rights. Such disparate

treatment, especially following protected activity,

supports a strong inference of retaliation under wellestablished case law, including Monaghan v.

Worldpay US, Inc., 955 F.3d 855, 862 (11th Cir. 2020).

A fundamental component of due process is the

right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard, which

necessarily includes the ability to present evidence in

support of one’s claims. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S.

254, 267 (1970) (“due process requires an evidentiary

hearing appropriate to the case”).

Here, I possess clear and critical evidence

demonstrating retaliatory disparate treatment, yet

the lower courts denied me any opportunity to

introduce this evidence into the record. This refusal

effectively deprived me of fair hearing and a full and

fair adjudication of my claims. Such a denial violates

the most basic principles of procedural due process

and fundamentally undermines the integrity of the

judicial process. The court’s failure to allow

presentation of evidence warrants immediate

intervention by this Court.

V. Judicial Integrity and Public Confidence Are at

Stake

9

This case implies more than individual rights; it

raises serious concerns about judicial neutrality and

procedural fairness. When courts appear to favor

represented parties and ignore valid arguments from

pro se litigants, it erodes public trust in the fairness

of the judiciary. The appearance of bias here is not

speculative; it is grounded in the record and the

courts' unexplained actions.

Early in the litigation, my former counsel filed key

documents late, failed to amend a claim despite the

court granting leave, and did nothing when my

deposition was abruptly canceled just ten days before

the

deadline,

without

any explanation or

rescheduling. Instead of ensuring my right to testify,

the court then scheduled an oral argument—without

warning—effectively replacing my opportunity to be

heard. The final blow came when my counsel

abandoned my case on the very day of that oral

argument, leaving me without representation at the

most critical stage. This pattern of procedural failure

and disregard for my rights denied me due process

under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In addition to the procedural violations and biased

rulings already described, the lower court failed to

exercise judicial oversight when my former counsel

stopped communicating with me, took actions without

my knowledge or consent, and excluded key claims

and evidence from the record. Notably, my scheduled

deposition was canceled two weeks before it was due,

without any explanation or notice to me, and oral

arguments were scheduled without my knowledge or

participation. The court had knowledge of these issues

but made no effort to intervene or protect my right to

fair representation.

Moreover, the lower court allowed opposing

counsel to obtain my sensitive medical records

10

protected by HIPAA laws based on an authorization

obtained with a manipulated signature—an act

amounting to perjury or forgery—without my consent

or proper authorization, compromising my privacy

and fundamental rights. This breach occurred despite

my explicit objections and without a fair opportunity

to contest the disclosure.

Furthermore, the court considered and ruled on a

motion related to these matters even after the case

was pending before the Third Circuit Court of

Appeals, violating principles of judicial efficiency and

respect for appellate jurisdiction. These failures

contributed to the denial of due process, blocked my

ability to present a full and accurate case, and

resulted in rulings that unfairly favored the opposing

party. The Court’s refusal to address these known

breakdowns in representation and procedural fairness

reflects a deeper collapse of transparency and justice

that demands Supreme Court review.

I have pursued every available legal remedy with

unwavering persistence, despite facing procedural

roadblocks,

biased

rulings,

and

ineffective

representation. My case reflects a troubling reality in

which judicial discretion has seemingly outweighed

my constitutional rights—particularly my right to due

process, to present evidence, and to receive a fair and

impartial hearing. The lower courts dismissed key

arguments without proper review, failed to correct or

explain irregularities, and denied relief based on

procedural technicalities that were avoidable or

beyond my control. When discretion is used to

overlook injustice rather than uphold fairness, it

threatens the very protections guaranteed by the

Constitution. I respectfully ask this Court to recognize

that my rights—and the rights of countless others—

11

should not be diminished by judicial indifference or

convenience.

VI. Circuit Splits Regarding

Supplemented Evidence

Treatment

of

Other federal circuits have taken a more flexible

and fair approach to supplemented records, especially

where pro se litigants are involved and the interests

of justice require full consideration of the record. By

contrast, the Third Circuit refused to even consider

evidence submitted through a motion to supplement

the record—which was denied—thereby foreclosing a

meaningful review.

This refusal conflicts with the approach taken by

other circuits. This Court’s guidance is urgently

needed to resolve this inconsistency and to protect

litigants’ constitutional rights nationwide.

VII. Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate

Disability

During my employment, I was subjected to

discriminatory treatment based on both age and

disability. My duty manager was fully aware of my

vision impairment and frequently made derogatory

remarks about my condition, fostering a hostile work

environment. As I continued to perform my duties

despite this impairment, she shifted her focus to my

age, using age-related comments to further isolate

and demean me. This pattern of conduct reflected

targeted bias against protected characteristics and set

the tone for ongoing mistreatment.

Considering my medical limitations, I made three

verbal requests for reasonable accommodation, all of

which were entirely ignored. Although these requests

12

were made orally, they were made in good faith and

are legally protected under the Americans with

Disabilities Act. At least one of these interactions may

be verifiable through official records or corroborating

evidence. Despite being fully aware of my condition

and requests, Human Resources failed to take any

action.

I was suspended while on my shift on February 24,

2020 without warning or explanation. I was then

terminated on March 23, 2020, without any prior

contact or opportunity to respond. During this period,

the company unlawfully retained personal items that

were in my possession, including my citizenship

certificate, without any communication or attempt to

return them. I was never formally informed of my

termination; instead, I was abruptly contacted and

asked to go to the airport only to be told I was fired.

Two weeks later, the employer falsely classified my

separation as “retirement”—a status I neither

requested nor consented to. I was not paid for the final

week I worked, February 16, 2020 through February

24, 2020. Accrued paid-time-off benefits were

withheld without justification. The lower courts

ignored these violations entirely, leaving me without

remedy. I respectfully request this Court’s review to

correct these fundamental injustices.

The Court’s refusal to consider key evidence—

submitted in good faith—effectively shielded a

retaliatory environment that culminated in my

unlawful termination, violating both my statutory

protections and constitutional rights. The suppression

of relevant documents, the court’s unexplained

acceptance of a contested motion to seal and strike,

and the absence of meaningful appellate review raise

serious constitutional concerns that merit this Court’s

intervention.

13

This petition raises urgent questions about

whether procedural gatekeeping can be used to

suppress evidence and avoid accountability for

constitutional violations.

VIII. Appendix Clarification

I had intended to file a separate sealed appendix to

preserve documents directly relevant to my claims of

retaliation and disparate treatment. These materials

were affected by United Airlines’ motion to strike or,

in the alternative, to seal improperly appended

documents (Dkt. 28, filed August 7, 2024), which the

Court of Appeals granted without clear explanation.

The motion targeted key appendices—some

produced by United during discovery and then later

claimed by them as “confidential”—thereby excluding

them from appellate review. United had revealed

these documents during discovery giving them

multiple opportunities to deem them as confidential

but waited almost two years to claim them as such.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals did not rule on the

motion submitted by the opposing counsel, leaving it

pending instead. As an alternative, the opposing

counsel submitted a motion to have these documents

stricken or sealed, and the Court of Appeals granted

them the motion without justification, although

previously leaving it pending. This contributed to an

unbalanced record and undermined my ability to

present critical evidence.

Severe financial hardship, along with my inability

to retain new counsel after my former attorney

withdrew, further prevented me from submitting the

separate appendix as originally intended. The absence

of these documents from the record heightened the

14

procedural

unfairness

and

prejudiced

the

constitutional issues I raised.

Following the adverse decision by the Court of

Appeals, I timely filed a petition for Rehearing and

Rehearing En Banc, which was denied on May 29,

2025 (Appendix F, Dkt. #70). I also submitted further

motions seeking relief and clarification, which were

denied by Order dated June 6, 2025 (Appendix I, Dkt.

#71), effectively concluding the proceedings at the

appellate level. These orders establish the finality

required for this Petition for Writ of Certiorari under

Supreme Court Rule 13.

I respectfully ask this Court to grant the writ to

restore fairness, ensure meaningful access to justice,

and resolve the serious constitutional issues

presented.

CONCLUSION

This case presents substantial constitutional and

statutory questions involving the denial of due

process, the suppression of critical evidence, and an

overall failure to ensure a fair proceeding.

Despite numerous good-faith filings, the Court of

Appeals granted only one out of sixteen motions—an

extension of time that bore no relevance to the core

legal

issues—while

disregarding

serious

constitutional violations and a clear pattern of

retaliation.

The record reflects not only legal errors but also an

appearance of bias and unequal treatment, which

undermines public trust in the judiciary.

I respectfully request that this Court grant the

writ of certiorari to restore fairness, ensure

meaningful access to justice, and resolve the

important legal questions raised in this case.

15

Respectfully submitted,

Rafael Paredes, Pro Se

800 Bronx River Road,

Apt. A31

Yonkers, NY 10708

(917) 312-5831

Dated: August 18, 2025

16