Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill American Airlines - Second Amended Complaint - Public

CONFIDENTIAL AND FILED UNDER SEAL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
THOR ZURBRIGGEN, DENA CATAN, )

HALEY JOHNSON, LYNNETTE CHESTER, )
KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JOSEPH CATAN, )
BARBARA BELL, DOUG CRUMRINE, )
LAJUAN PRESTON, TIMOTHY TERRY, )
JULIETTE ONODY, CONSTANCE )
GERMOND MCCORD, TIMOTHY R. )
AKERS, JULIE BURKE, PATRICIA ) Case No. 1:17-cv-05648
BEHNKE, EDWARD J. BURKE, STEPHEN )
WEIGEL, DORA A. BROWN BRANCH, ) Hon. John J. Tharp, Jr.
SOAD HAMDAN, VICKIE ISAAC, )
DEMETRIA ANDERSON, KEITH MAGINN, ) Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole
JUDITH J. DRAKE, DESIREE WEBBER- )
VAN BOXTEL, CHRISTINA NYAKAS, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CHRISTINA H. ENDICOTT, SHERYL )
KELLY, SCOTT J. AUSTIN, MIN LI, )
CARLA J. PATTERSON, BOBBI GORDON, )
CARRIE BEAN, LISA JOY, KATHY L. )
RUNKLE, VERONICA VERA, JULIE F. )
KRESKO, SANDRA STUART, DEANNA )
JONES, and DEBORAH A. BRASIER on )
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others )
similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
v. )
)
TWIN HILL ACQUISITION COMPANY, )
INC., a California corporation, AMERICAN )
AIRLINES GROUP INC., a Delaware )
corporation, AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a )
Delaware corporation, PSA AIRLINES, INC., )
a Pennsylvania corporation, ENVOY AIR )
INC., a Delaware corporation, and )
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware )
corporation, )
)
Defendants. )
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Nature of Action .................................................................................................................1
II. Jurisdiction and Venue ......................................................................................................8
III. Parties..................................................................................................................................9
Plaintiffs ...................................................................................................................9
Defendants .............................................................................................................15
IV. Background Facts ............................................................................................................17
American Selects Twin Hill ...................................................................................17
American Ignores Its Unions and Attempts to Conceal the Problem ....................18
American’s Management Was Fully Involved ......................................................20
Oeko-Tex Certifications.........................................................................................21
The First Wear Test ...............................................................................................23
Intertek Testing April 1, 2015 Report ....................................................................27
Second Wear Test ..................................................................................................30
Intertek Testing April 5, 2016 Report ....................................................................33
August 2016 Final Rollout Preparations ................................................................39
American Unleashes the Twin Hill Uniforms on an Unsuspecting Workforce.....42
November 28, 2016 Intertek Testing Report ........................................................58
American Denies All Workers’ Compensation Claims .........................................59
American’s Knowledge of Proximity Reactions ...................................................60
American Considers Patch Testing ........................................................................65
American Seeks To Silence All Critics .................................................................66
American Considers Alternative
Uniforms While Ignoring Proximity Reactors .......................................................69
The Complaints Continue to Grow ........................................................................71
Harvard School of Public Health Study ................................................................79
American Intentionally Harmed and
Continues to Harm Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactor Class ............................79
The January 2018 NIOSH Report .......................................................................106
V. Class Allegations ............................................................................................................112
-i-
VI. Claims Alleged ................................................................................................................115
Battery ..................................................................................................................115
Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress ........................................................116
Strict Liability ......................................................................................................117
Negligence ...........................................................................................................119
Equitable Relief Including Medical Monitoring ..................................................120
Fraud ....................................................................................................................122
VII. Jury Demand ..................................................................................................................123
VIII. Request for Relief...........................................................................................................123
- ii -
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Thor Zurbriggen, Dena Catan, Haley Johnson, Lynnette Chester, Kimberly
Johnson, Joseph Catan, Barbara Bell, Doug Crumrine, LaJuan Preston, Timothy Terry, Juliette
Onody, Constance Germond McCord, Timothy R. Akers, Julie Burke, Patricia Behnke, Edward J.
Burke, Stephen Weigel, Dora A. Brown Branch, Soad Hamdan, Vickie Isaac, Demetria Anderson,
Keith Maginn, Judith J. Drake, Desiree Webber-van Boxtel, Christina Nyakas, Christina H.
Endicott, Sheryl Kelly, Scott J. Austin, Min Li, Carla J. Patterson, Bobbi Gordon, Carrie Bean,
Lisa Joy, Kathy L. Runkle, Veronica Vera, Julie F. Kresko, Sandra Stuart, Deanna Jones, and
Deborah A. Brasier (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this Second Amended Class Action Complaint
against Defendants Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. (“Twin Hill”) and American Airlines
Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., PSA Airlines, Inc., and Envoy Air Inc. (collectively referred
to herein as “American” or “American Airlines”), on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, complain and allege upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their
own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including
investigation conducted by their attorneys.
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This matter involves clear and present—as well as future—dangers posed to the
health and well-being of thousands of employees of American Airlines, including flight attendants,
pilots, and customer service representatives.
2. The facts, from Plaintiffs’ original investigation, now confirmed and supplemented
by the beginning of Defendants’ initial production of documents pursuant to this District’s
Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (“MIDP”), portray a far worse picture than was known to the
public, to American employees who have been and continue to be exposed to Twin Hill uniforms
and what was known at the time of the filing. American has known all along that the Twin Hill
uniforms would cause harm to its employees but, rather than correct the problem, American
continues to falsely tell its employees that the uniforms have been proven safe. American has
provided zero evidence to Plaintiffs to support that claim. To the contrary, the documents
American produced pursuant to the MIDP show the opposite.
3. The Twin Hill uniforms were officially rolled out on September 19, 2016. Long
before that time, starting in 2014 and continuing through today, American management knew that
rolling out the Twin Hill uniforms would cause injury to thousands of its employees. American
knew the uniforms were unsafe, based on, among other things:
a. two separate wear tests—(i) one in or about 2014-2015 (which was
referenced in the original complaint) and (ii) a much larger one in
early 2016 (with over 500 wear testers)—both of which clearly
demonstrated that the uniforms were causing injuries to a large
swath of the wear testers with injuries similar to those which
happened in connection with the Alaska Airlines/Twin Hill incident
and which were similar to the symptoms that thousands began
reporting both before (when they received their uniforms prior to the
rollout in the summer of 2016) and after the September 2016 rollout;
b. chemical testing American had conducted by Intertek, which
literally found the uniforms contained (i) “unknown chemicals” but
which Intertek noted likely included potentially dangerous volatile
organic compounds, (ii) eight sensitizers that were found in the
Twin Hill uniforms but which were not found in other “control”
-2-
garments—sensitizers which Intertek told American would cause
injuries consistent with what had happened during the wear tests and
in connection with the rollout, (iii) other potential carcinogens,
including cadmium, pentachlorophenol, tetrachlorophenol, and
formaldehyde, and (iv) most importantly, never stated the uniforms
or fabrics were safe;
c. the pleas by the pilot and flight attendant unions not to use or roll
out the Twin Hill uniforms due to the safety issues that were clearly
established during the wear tests; and
d. what was described by the management head of the uniform rollout
as a “deluge” of reaction reports, made to him and other high level
management, by individuals who were already reacting pre-rollout
in August and early September 2016 as they received their uniforms
in advance of the general rollout.
4. Following the September 2016 rollout, that steady stream of reports of injured
employees from the Twin Hill uniforms turned into a river, so much so that American was forced
to set up a separate apparatus just to deal with the information flow, which was, to quote one
American manager, just three days after the rollout: “the volume is growing beyond what one
person can reasonably handle.” (AA9477).1
1
American produced documents to Plaintiffs with the numbering scheme “AA-ZUR-
00000000”. For brevity, Plaintiffs cite those documents as “AA” and omit the leading zeros, thus
“AA-ZUR-00009477” is cited as “AA9477”. These documents are not being filed now because
American designated most of these documents as confidential. Plaintiffs intend to renew their prior
motion to de-designate these documents as confidential (Dkt. Nos. 70-71, which was denied
without prejudice), and will seek leave to file a supplemental pleading with the cited documents
attached as exhibits in the event that motion is successful. In the interim, many of the documents
cited herein are contained in the sealed entry of Dkt. No. 70.
-3-
5. The Twin Hill uniforms pose potential long-term health risks to all that are and
have been exposed to them, regardless of whether they display the adverse health symptoms that
thousands of American employees have and continue to experience or whether through good
fortune have yet to manifest symptoms. In this manner, American is intentionally and with
substantial certainty harming every employee—no matter whether they have reported adverse
health consequences yet. And American clearly knows the name of each employee who has been
and is currently being exposed to these toxic uniforms.
6. As described below, American currently knows the identity of the Plaintiffs here as
well as numerous others who have told American that they have been and are currently being
injured on a daily basis by just being near those wearing the Twin Hill uniforms. With this sort of
suffering happening on a daily basis, American’s continued false claims that the Twin Hill
uniforms are safe while it knows the suffering it is causing is not only inexplicable but shocks the
conscience.
7. This is a public health crisis that requires immediate action. It cannot wait several
years for American to correct just because it claims it may introduce new flight attendant uniforms
or that at some point in time all pilots too will have replacement uniforms.
8. This matter also involves a concerted effort—at the highest levels of American’s
corporate organization—to fraudulently cover up the dangers posed by these uniforms. From the
first wear test in 2015 to this day, American has falsely portrayed the Twin Hill uniforms to its
entire workforce as having been proven safe. But the facts that American knew prior to the rollout
as well as after the rollout, including testing performed on its behalf, show that American knew
that its claims about the safety of the uniforms were patently false—and remain so.
9. For example, American claimed and still maintains that the fabrics used by Twin
-4-
Hill were Oeko-Tex certified—Oeko-Tex being a private certification entity. But American knew
and knows this to be false; at American’s request, Twin Hill made an entirely new and cheaper
fabric, and one that just based upon its review of the papers submitted to it by Twin Hill, American
could see that this fabric was not covered by any Oeko-Tex certification.
10. American’s upper level management tasked with overseeing the uniform rollout put
themselves under artificial time pressures. When American discovered that the Twin Hill uniforms
were provoking adverse reactions, nearly a year and a half prior to the September 2016 rollout—
rather than act responsibly and protect its employees—American chose to dismiss these problems
at each of the numerous critical junctures when it should have halted this process in its tracks.
11. American and its upper level managers knew, well before the rollout, based upon
the, albeit incomplete, uniform chemical testing conducted by Intertek and pre-wear testing that
had been conducted, that a sizeable percentage of American employees were going to experience
serious adverse health effects from the Twin Hill uniforms and that it was exposing its entire
workforce to potential, but yet to surface, future health issues because of their exposure to these
toxic uniforms. Those employees would be working together in close quarters, including in planes
with closed air systems that re-circulate the cabin air, when it was and is clear that the toxic
uniforms are off-gassing something(s).
12. Indeed, American’s two largest unions, the pilots union (“APA”) and the mainline
flight attendant union (“APFA”), urged American to use a different vendor, and not to move
forward with the Twin Hill rollout, as reports of wear testers having adverse reactions to the
uniforms kept rolling in. American dismissed those pleas.
13. American’s upper level management, in the face of this clear evidence of danger to
its entire workforce, continued and continues to pretend the uniforms are safe, and to portray
-5-
anyone who dared to complain as an isolated incident, overly sensitive, or a malingerer.
14. The sheer volume of complaints unraveled American’s strategy. As noted below,
even American’s self-serving internal communications estimate that 14,000 employees have
elected to wear alternative uniforms to the Twin Hill uniforms (which is an internal euphemism
for reactors) and that at least 3,500 are continuing to be harmed just by being near the uniforms,
i.e., proximity reactors.
15. And these are early numbers from 2017; Plaintiffs believe the actual numbers are
now higher as well as the fact that American knows the names of thousands of reactors, including
proximity reactors. Indeed, over half of American’s 15,000 pilots have certified, by name and in
writing to American, that they are having health problems with the Twin Hill uniforms as this
was required of them to place an order with the new pilot uniform supplier. (American is seemingly
acting more swiftly to get the Twin Hill uniforms out of the cockpit for obvious safety reasons but
these uniforms are severely back ordered as a result.)
16. Despite the literally thousands of complaints made by its employees about the
uniforms, the numerous personal entreaties made to various American managers by employees
seriously harmed by the uniforms, and this lawsuit, American has taken only minimal steps in
response to this crisis. American has terminated its long-term uniform contract with Twin Hill,
and has announced it will replace the Twin Hill uniforms—in a few years or so—when it took
close to four years to rollout the cheaply made Twin Hill uniforms. In the meantime, while
American has permitted those who choose to wear alternative uniforms (their old blues or off-the-
rack replacements as well as some made by another uniform manufacturer chosen by American,
i.e., Aramark), the majority continue to wear the Twin Hill uniforms, based on American’s
repeated but false assurances that the uniforms are safe.
-6-
17. The result is that additional complaints continue as those who still wear the Twin
Hill uniforms develop reactions to the uniforms, and those who are proximity reactors continue to
suffer while they work around the Twin Hill uniforms.
18. To make matters worse, American, which bought the entire inventory of the Twin
Hill uniforms as a condition of Twin Hill agreeing to terminate the contract, is now requiring new
hires to purchase and wear them, without American giving them any warning of possible health
issues.
19. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American employees who are proximity reactors
have told American that they are continuing to have reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms when they
are working with co-workers who are wearing the Twin Hill uniforms. American knows
specifically who these employees are by name, including, as alleged below, Plaintiffs in this
action—because Plaintiffs and other employees told American they were being harmed just by
being in proximity to those wearing the Twin Hill uniforms.
20. American has taken no steps to stop harming these people, either by removing the
Twin Hill uniforms from the workplace or by granting them unlimited sick leave with full benefits
until it correct the harms that it has and still is causing. Instead it requires these employees to work
in a dangerous environment that it created.
21. The story of Captain Joseph Catan, summarized below and set forth in greater detail
infra ¶¶ 348-66, is instructive. After over a year of reporting his proximity reactions to American,
American has prevented Captain Catan from trying to prevent problems in his own cockpit. Thus,
when a first officer told him that he was a reactor, Captain Catan suggested that the first officer
wear alternative clothing, as permitted by American, and even went so far as offering to pay for or
share the costs to buy such clothing. Captain Catan was called on the carpet and told to never again
-7-
do this and to never again inquire, prior to a flight, whether a first officer might be wearing a Twin
Hill uniform. On one hand American is intentionally harming Captain Catan by forcing him to
work around Twin Hill uniforms, while on the other American is preventing him from mitigating
this harm and is insistent on injuring him and others.
22. Plaintiffs, who are from seventeen states, seek, on an individual or class-wide basis:
(1) injunctive relief to (a) prevent the further provision of the Twin Hill uniforms to American
Airlines employees, (b) to provide for the recall of these toxic uniforms and the removal of these
uniforms from the workplace, (c) to provide for each aircraft and affected workplace to be
cleansed, or (d) in the alternative requiring American to provide currently suffering employees
who are proximity reactors, including Plaintiffs and others that it knows by name, sick leave with
full benefits until the problem is cleared up as recommended by NIOSH; and (2) equitable relief
in the form of medical monitoring for the purpose of detecting or diagnosing any conditions,
symptoms, or injuries resulting from the exposure to the uniforms.
23. Plaintiffs also assert, on an individual basis, claims for personal injury damages that
they have suffered as the result of Twin Hill’s and American’s conduct.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24. With respect to the class allegations, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). In the
aggregate, the Plaintiffs’ and the Class’ equitable claims exceed $5,000,000 exclusive of interests
and costs, and there are numerous class members who are citizens of states other than Defendants’
states of citizenship. This Court has specific jurisdiction over Defendants because Plaintiffs Thor
Zurbriggen, Haley Johnson, Juliette Onody, Julie Burke, Patricia Behnke, Stephen Weigel, Soad
Hamdan, Judith J. Drake, Desiree Webber-van Boxtel, and Sandra Stuart are residents and citizens
-8-
of the State of Illinois, received and began wearing their uniforms in Illinois, and suffered injury
in Illinois. Defendants have supplied hundreds if not thousands of its uniforms to other Class
members who are residents of Illinois and who also suffered injuries in this state. This Court also
has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ individual claims for damages (to the extent that for
certain claims there is no diversity jurisdiction) and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
25. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and
(b)(2). Plaintiffs Thor Zurbriggen, Haley Johnson, Juliette Onody, Julie Burke, Patricia Behnke,
Stephen Weigel, Soad Hamdan, Judith J. Drake, Desiree Webber-van Boxtel, and Sandra Stuart
reside in this district, received their new uniforms (manufactured by Defendant Twin Hill) in this
district, were injured in this district and their work activities regularly begin and end in this district.
For their part, Defendants distributed hundreds, if not thousands, of new uniforms to American
Airlines employees in this district as American Airlines maintains one of its largest hubs here.
III. PARTIES
Plaintiffs
26. Plaintiff Thor Zurbriggen (“Plaintiff Zurbriggen”), a flight attendant, is a resident
and citizen of Illinois and is currently domiciled in Chicago, Illinois. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1332, Plaintiff Zurbriggen is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Zurbriggen is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
27. Plaintiff Dena Catan (“Plaintiff Dena Catan”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
citizen of Connecticut and is currently domiciled in Southbury, Connecticut. For purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Dena Catan is a citizen of Connecticut. Plaintiff Dena Catan is an
employee of American Airlines, Inc.
28. Plaintiff Haley Johnson (“Plaintiff Haley Johnson”), a flight attendant, is a resident
-9-
and citizen of Illinois and is currently domiciled in Chicago, Illinois. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1332, Plaintiff Haley Johnson is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Haley Johnson is an employee of
American Airlines, Inc.
29. Plaintiff Lynnette Chester (“Plaintiff Chester”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
citizen of Indiana and is current domiciled in Valparaiso, Indiana. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1332, Plaintiff Chester is a citizen of Indiana. Plaintiff Chester is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
30. Plaintiff Kimberly Johnson (“Plaintiff Kimberly Johnson”), a flight attendant, is a
resident and citizen of North Carolina and is currently domiciled in Davidson, North Carolina. For
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Kimberly Johnson is a citizen of North Carolina. Plaintiff
Kimberly Johnson is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
31. Plaintiff Joseph Catan (“Plaintiff Joseph Catan”), a pilot and captain, is a resident
and citizen of Connecticut and is currently domiciled in Southbury, Connecticut. For purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Joseph Catan is a citizen of Connecticut. Plaintiff Joseph Catan is an
32. Plaintiff Barbara Bell (“Plaintiff Bell”), a service representative, is a resident and
citizen of Nevada and is currently domiciled in Las Vegas, Nevada. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1332, Plaintiff Bell is a citizen of Nevada. Plaintiff Bell is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
33. Plaintiff Doug Crumrine (“Plaintiff Crumrine”), a pilot, is a resident and citizen of
Texas and is currently domiciled in Granbury, Texas. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff
Crumrine is a citizen of Texas. Plaintiff Crumrine is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
34. Plaintiff LaJuan Preston (“Plaintiff Preston”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
citizen of North Carolina and is currently domiciled in Charlotte, North Carolina. For purposes of
- 10 -
28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Preston is a citizen of North Carolina. Plaintiff Preston is an employee
of American Airlines, Inc.
35. Plaintiff Timothy Terry (“Plaintiff Terry”), a pilot, is a resident and citizen of Iowa
and is currently domiciled in West Des Moines, Iowa. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff
Terry is a citizen of Iowa. Plaintiff Terry is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
36. Plaintiff Juliette Onody (“Plaintiff Onody”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
citizen of Illinois and is currently domiciled in Chicago, Illinois. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
Plaintiff Onody is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Onody is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
37. Plaintiff Connie Germond McCord (“Plaintiff McCord”), a flight attendant, is a
resident and citizen of North Carolina and is currently domiciled in West End, North Carolina. For
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff McCord is a citizen of North Carolina. Plaintiff McCord
is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
38. Plaintiff Timothy R. Akers (“Plaintiff Akers”), a pilot, is a resident and citizen of
Florida and is currently domiciled in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
Plaintiff Akers is a citizen of Florida. Plaintiff Akers is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
39. Plaintiff Julie Burke (“Plaintiff Julie Burke”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
citizen of Illinois and is currently domiciled in Naperville, Illinois. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1332, Plaintiff Julie Burke is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Julie Burke is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
40. Plaintiff Patricia Behnke (“Plaintiff Behnke”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
citizen of Illinois and is currently domiciled in Carol Stream, Illinois. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1332, Plaintiff Behnke is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Behnke is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
- 11 -
41. Plaintiff Edward J. Burke (“Plaintiff Edward Burke”), a pilot, is a resident and
citizen of Pennsylvania and is currently domiciled in Macungie, Pennsylvania. For purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Edward Burke is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Edward Burke is an
42. Plaintiff Stephen Weigel (“Plaintiff Weigel”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
Plaintiff Weigel is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Weigel is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
43. Plaintiff Dora Ann Brown Branch (“Plaintiff Branch”), a flight attendant, is a
resident and citizen of Georgia and is currently domiciled in Atlanta, Georgia. For purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Branch is a citizen of Georgia. Plaintiff Branch is an employee of
44. Plaintiff Soad Hamdan (“Plaintiff Hamdan”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
Plaintiff Hamdan is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Hamdan is an employee of American Airlines,
Inc.
45. Plaintiff Vickie Isaac (“Plaintiff Isaac”), a flight attendant, is a resident and citizen
of Utah and is currently domiciled in Logan, Utah. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff
Isaac is a citizen of Utah. Plaintiff Isaac is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
46. Plaintiff Demetria Anderson (“Plaintiff Anderson”), a flight attendant, is a resident
and citizen of Tennessee and is currently domiciled in Cordova, Tennessee. For purpose of 28
U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Anderson is a citizen of Tennessee. Plaintiff Anderson is an employee of
Envoy Air Inc.
47. Plaintiff Keith Maginn (“Plaintiff Maginn”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
- 12 -
citizen of Ohio and is currently domiciled in Cincinnati, Ohio. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
Plaintiff Maginn is a citizen of Ohio. Plaintiff Maginn is an employee of PSA Airlines, Inc.
48. Plaintiff Judith J. Drake (“Plaintiff Drake”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
Plaintiff Drake is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Drake is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
49. Plaintiff Desiree Webber-van Boxtel (“Plaintiff Boxtel”), a flight attendant, is a
resident and citizen of Illinois and is currently domiciled in Downers Grove, Illinois. For purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Boxtel is a citizen of the State of Illinois. Plaintiff Boxtel was an
employee of American Airlines, Inc. and has recently retired.
50. Plaintiff Christina Nyakas (“Plaintiff Nyakas”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
citizen of Florida and is currently domiciled in Pompano Beach, Florida. For purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, Plaintiff Nyakas is a citizen of Florida. Plaintiff Nyakas is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
51. Plaintiff Christina H. Endicott (“Plaintiff Endicott”), a flight attendant, is a resident
and citizen of Rhode Island and is currently domiciled in East Greenwich, Rhode Island. For
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Endicott is a citizen of Rhode Island. Plaintiff Endicott is
an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
52. Plaintiff Sheryl Kelly (“Plaintiff Kelly”), a flight attendant, is a resident and citizen
of Massachusetts and is currently domiciled in Plymouth, Massachusetts. For purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Kelly is a citizen of Massachusetts. Plaintiff Kelly is an employee of
53. Plaintiff Scott J. Austin (“Plaintiff Austin”), a pilot, is a resident and citizen of
Massachusetts and is currently domiciled in Brimfield, Massachusetts. For purposes of 28 U.S.C.
- 13 -
§ 1332, Plaintiff Austin is a citizen of Massachusetts. Plaintiff Austin is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
54. Plaintiff Min Li (“Plaintiff Li”), a flight attendant, is a resident and citizen of
Florida and is currently domiciled in Boca Raton, Florida. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
Plaintiff Li is a citizen of Florida. Plaintiff Li is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
55. Plaintiff Carla J. Patterson (“Plaintiff Patterson”), a flight attendant, is a resident
and citizen of Ohio and is currently domiciled in West Chester, Ohio. For purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, Plaintiff Patterson is a citizen of Ohio. Plaintiff Patterson is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
56. Plaintiff Bobbi Gordon (“Plaintiff Gordon”), a flight attendant, is a resident and
citizen of Colorado and is currently domiciled in Calhan, Colorado. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1332, Plaintiff Gordon is a citizen of Colorado. Plaintiff Gordon is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
57. Plaintiff Carrie Bean (“Plaintiff Bean”), a pilot, is a resident and citizen of North
Carolina and is currently domiciled in Jacksonville, North Carolina. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1332, Plaintiff Bean is a citizen of North Carolina. Plaintiff Bean is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
58. Plaintiff Lisa Joy (“Plaintiff Joy”), a flight attendant, is a resident and citizen of
North Carolina and is currently domiciled in Holly Springs, North Carolina. For purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Joy is a citizen of North Carolina. Plaintiff Joy is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
59. Kathy L. Runkle (“Plaintiff Runkle”), a flight attendant, is a resident and citizen of
Pennsylvania and is currently domiciled in Stewartstown, Pennsylvania. For purposes of 28 U.S.C.
- 14 -
§ 1332, Plaintiff Runkle is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Runkle is an employee of American
Airlines, Inc.
60. Veronica Vera (“Plaintiff Vera”), a flight attendant, is a resident and citizen of
Texas and is currently domiciled in Irving, Texas. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Vera
is a citizen of Texas. Plaintiff Vera is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
61. Julie F. Kresko (“Plaintiff Kresko”), a pilot, is a resident and citizen of Colorado
and is currently domiciled in Edwards, Colorado. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff
Kresko is a citizen of Colorado. Plaintiff Kresko is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
62. Sandra Stuart (“Plaintiff Stuart”), a flight attendant, is a resident and citizen of
Illinois and is currently domiciled in Elmwood Park, Illinois. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
Plaintiff Stuart is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Stuart is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
63. Deanna Jones (“Plaintiff Jones”), was a flight attendant, is a resident and citizen of
Massachusetts and is currently domiciled in Medford, Massachusetts. For purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, Plaintiff Jones is a citizen of Massachusetts. Plaintiff Jones was an employee of American
Airlines. She was terminated from her employment at American Airlines on August 3, 2018, due
to the accrual of sick leave.
64. Deborah A. Brasier (“Plaintiff Brasier”), a flight attendant, is a resident and citizen
of Arizona, and is currently domiciled in Anthem, Arizona. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
Plaintiff Brasier is a citizen of Arizona. Plaintiff Brasier is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.
Defendants
65. Defendant American Airlines Group Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices located in Fort Worth, Texas. American Airlines Group Inc.’s wholly-
owned subsidiaries include Defendant American Airlines, Inc., PSA Airlines, Inc. and Envoy Air
- 15 -
Inc. For the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, American Airlines Group Inc. is a citizen of Delaware
and Texas.
66. Defendant American Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Fort Worth, Texas. American Airlines, Inc. is wholly owned by
American Airlines Group Inc. For the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, American Airlines is a citizen
of Delaware and Texas.
67. Defendant PSA Airlines, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Vandalia, Ohio. PSA is wholly owned by American Airlines Group
Inc. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, PSA is a citizen of Pennsylvania and Ohio.
68. Defendant Envoy Air Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Irving, Texas. Envoy is wholly owned by American Airlines Group Inc. For
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Envoy is a citizen of Delaware and Texas.
69. On information and belief, Defendants American Airlines Group Inc. and American
Airlines, Inc. controlled and dictated the uniforms worn by employees of Defendants PSA Airlines,
Inc. and Envoy Air Inc.
70. Defendant Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. (“Twin Hill”) is a California
corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Texas. Twin Hill operates under the name
Twin Hill and Twin Hill Corporate Apparel. Twin Hill is wholly owned by The Men’s Wearhouse,
Inc. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Twin Hill is a citizen of California and Texas.
- 16 -
IV. BACKGROUND FACTS2
American Selects Twin Hill
71. On or about February 2012, American issued a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) for a
company to develop and manufacture new uniforms for the entire Above the Wing (“ATW”)
workforce, including flight attendants, pilots and service agents.
72. American received bids from Land’s End, a well-known high-end clothing and
uniform manufacturer. Land’s End had previously been selected by Alaska Airlines after it had to
replace Twin Hill uniforms due to almost one-third of its workforce getting ill from exposure to
the Twin Hill uniforms. But American did not choose Land’s End.
73. Instead, based upon, among other things, cheaper cost, in or around 2013 American
chose Twin Hill to manufacture the uniforms, and Kaufman Franco to design them.
74. It appears that Twin Hill did not have the capital to “invest” in a good garment
manufacturing structure in the third world countries where much of its clothing was made. For
example, with a large account like American, a uniform manufacturer must reserve, with pre-
payments, top garment factories in advance. On information and belief, Twin Hill did not have the
wherewithal or infrastructure to do this, so when it landed a large account like American (perhaps
its largest ever) it had to scramble to line up the factories on short notice. As a result, quality
control went out the window with regard to the fabric and garment factories.
75. The result was that Twin Hill badly needed to land the American account, even
though it really did not have the ability to safely accomplish the job. And, as a result, it did not.
76. But this had been a problem at Twin Hill for a while. When sales representatives
2
The section entitled Background Facts is based upon documents produced by American
and Twin Hill pursuant to the MIDP. They only represent a small amount of the documents that
necessarily exist, as the American document custodians whose files were searched did not
encompass many of the key players in this event.
- 17 -
reported that customers were adversely reacting to its uniforms on a variety of accounts prior to
American, Twin Hill just told the sales representatives to tell customers whatever they could to
mollify them.
77. In fact, Twin Hill’s own sales representatives had reactions to Twin Hill uniforms
that they stored at their residences or in their vehicles; several used to joke that the job would
eventually kill them.
78. Although Kaufman Franco, which was a high end design firm, was supposed to
complete the initial uniform design, that did not happen, and American and Kaufman Franco parted
ways, apparently because Kaufman Franco too advised against going with Twin Hill. Instead,
Twin Hill took over the entire account, which included uniform design and sourcing.
79. American hired Twin Hill even though it was fully aware that Twin Hill had, to put
it kindly, a checkered past with regard to its uniforms. Substantial numbers of employees of Alaska
Airlines, as well as employees at UPS, Southwest and NetJet had all previously complained about
their Twin Hill uniforms causing them ill-health.
80. In contrast, with regard to its proposed new uniform Land’s End rollout in the next
few years, it was just reported that American has required such things as that the manufacturing
process be closely monitored by Oeko-Tex—from fabrics to the jacket buttons, and from
manufacture to assembly—with regular testing of the garments to ensure that safe chemicals at
safe levels are used at all times. While equally available then, none of this was done in connection
with the Twin Hill uniforms—even though American was, as it is now, informed that Twin Hill
uniforms had previously caused injury to airline employees.
American Ignores Its Unions and Attempts to Conceal the Problem
81. Before Twin Hill was selected, when it was down to it and Land’s End,
- 18 -
representatives of the Allied Pilots Association (“APA”) repeatedly pleaded with American to not
select Twin Hill because of its history and the dangers Twin Hill uniforms could pose to
American’s 70,000 person workforce.
82. But in what became a disturbing pattern from the beginning, American viewed the
unions, at least internally, with disdain and distrust in an old-school hostility of management
towards unions and their members, believing that the reports of complaints were being fabricated
in order for the unions and its members to gain bargaining leverage over American.
83. Thus, from the beginning, when representatives from the APA, AFA (Association
of Flight Attendants) and APFA (Association of Professional Flight Attendants) pleaded with
American to go with another supplier other than Twin Hill, American viewed them as adversaries.
And when the unions reported—well before the rollout—that their members who were wear testers
and others who received the Twin Hill uniforms were experiencing adverse health consequences
(which were similar to those reported by Alaska Airlines employees), American viewed them as
adversaries.
84. The result was that rather than treat the complaints it was receiving from the unions
as credible and worthy of serious investigation, American sought to discredit and minimize them.
85. Thus, when reports of adverse health reactions came in from the very first wear test
in December 2014-January 2015, American did not send out nurses or physicians to examine these
people to find out what was happening to them.
86. Instead, American did what it did repeatedly, at every juncture when American was
confronted with the fact that people were adversely reacting to the Twin Hill uniforms—it ignored
the people actually reacting and instead sent some uniforms out for “testing.”
87. This turned into a sanitization exercise that had as its intent and effect to allow
- 19 -
American to falsely claim that its uniforms were safe when it knew that they were not.
88. Any responsible company, when it hears that its employees are suffering from
something that it did to them, at a minimum, must examine the people who are sick and attempt to
find out and try to fix the problem. American did not do what any responsible company would do.
89. To the contrary, American hired one of the only specialists in the United States who
might be able to discover at least what it is about these uniforms that is causing skin issues, which
in turn might lead to the discovery of other causes. But American promptly put him on the shelf
when he reported his first results, stopping his investigation in its early tracks and ending any
inquiries he might have made.
90. He, in turn, has refused to be engaged by Plaintiffs because American has told him
to not do so. This is not a litigation strategy—this is part of a larger effort to cover-up what has
happened and continues to this date. American does not and has never wanted to know the truth
before or after the rollout.
91. Instead, American ordered outside chemical testing of some Twin Hill garments—
with no examination of any of the people affected—and did so with artificial restrictions that would
enable it to both minimize the scope of the problem and to claim the uniforms were safe. For
example, American knew (because it had been told by its wear testers and the unions) that the
adverse reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms were not limited to skin rashes or skin related problems
and included respiratory problems, migraine-like headaches, and vision problems. But at each step
all that American requested its testing company to look for were chemicals that might provoke
skin problems.
American’s Management Was Fully Involved
92. American’s contract with Twin Hill was signed on behalf of American by Fern
- 20 -
Fernandez, a member of American’s upper level management team who, in conjunction with
Hector Adler and Suzanne Boda spearheaded the Twin Hill uniform debacle from beginning until
2017 when, after thousands of American employees were reacting and suffering from the ill-effects
of the Twin Hill uniforms, they were either demoted or, in the case of Fern Fernandez “retired.”
93. Fern Fernandez was Vice President Global Marketing, Hector Adler was Vice
President Flight Service and Suzanne Boda was Senior Vice President Hubs. All were upper level
managers who directly and regularly reported to the American C-Suite on the uniform rollout
status. Fernandez, Adler and Boda effectively served as American’s upper management level
“Troika” who had responsibility for the uniform rollout from the beginning until they were relieved
of their duties in 2017.
94. The actions of Fernandez, Adler and Boda, along with other upper level
management involved with the Twin Hill uniform debacle were approved and authorized at the
highest levels of American, including its CEO Doug Parker and President Robert Isom as well as
other C-suite officers. As more fully set forth below, both Messrs. Parker and Isom, though directly
receiving pleas from employees suffering severe health issues including those who were proximity
reactors, ignored these pleas and merely passed these emails down the chain where they were then
effectively sent to purgatory.
95. Moreover, even though documents have not yet been produced from the files of
Isom or Parker, and so Plaintiffs only have glimpses of their involvement as reflected in others’
emails, it is clear that they too were involved in American’s elaborate attempts to cover-up the true
dangers of these toxic uniforms as well as numerous other upper level managers.
Oeko-Tex Certifications
96. Reports of adverse health reactions from Twin Hill uniforms made for American
- 21 -
occurred as early as January 2014 in connection with an early wear test of the prototypes
manufactured by Twin Hill.
97. American internal documents show that in early January 2014 American requested
Intertek, a testing entity with which American had a long-standing relationship, to test the uniforms
because employees wearing the uniforms “reported rashes during launch period.” (AA3148)
Rashes were one of the initial symptoms experienced during the much publicized Alaska Airlines
event but not the only ones.
98. American went to Intertek and asked them to test the Twin Hill uniforms for
chemicals that may cause skin reactions. And it should be noted that before the third Intertek
report—during August 2016 pre-rollout—American tried to hire Oeko-Tex to do testing and it
declined, telling American that testing finished uniforms that had already been manufactured to
look for dangerous chemicals was “virtually impossible” because there are thousands of chemicals
that possibly could be used. (AA4049)
99. OEKO-TEX is a certification entity. It publishes what it calls the OEKO-TEX 100,
which is a list of 100 chemicals that may be found in garments but for which it claims to have set
threshold safety levels. The standards are met by private consent and have no legal effect. In
addition, the levels set by OEKO-TEX for these chemicals are subject to being questioned, as the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) recognized in a subsequent
report it issued regarding the Twin Hill uniforms here. For example, the Oeko-Tex 100 focuses on
individual chemicals and their limits, but does not deal with chemical mixtures.
100. Further, no certification of the garments was performed during the manufacturing
process as was available from Oeko-Tex. Rather, Twin Hill used 14 fabric factories. Of those 14
mills, nine were in China, with others in Bulgaria, South Korea, France, Italy and the United
- 22 -
Kingdom. Of those 14, only 10 had what is called a Class II certification from Oeko-Tex. A Class
II certification does not mean that everything that the mill makes is certified. Rather, it means that
a particular type of fabric, if made according to an Oeko-Tex approved recipe, has been certified.
But the fabric that Twin Hill used for American Airlines was a special order one off that did not
come under the Class II certifications based upon documents produced to date and other public
disclosures.
101. American falsely proclaimed to its employees that all of the fabrics used in the
Twin Hill garments were OEKO-TEX certified when they were not.
102. Moreover, American falsely led its employees to believe that the garments were
proven safe under the OEKO-TEX standards, when no already made fabric can be proven safe by
any post production testing for the reasons stated herein.
103. After the fabrics were manufactured by one of the 14 mills, Twin Hill used 12
factories to assemble garments. Three of those factories were located in China, three in Vietnam,
two in Bangladesh, two in Sri Lanka, one in Indonesia, and one in Hungary.
The First Wear Test
104. In or about May 2014, internal documents show that approval was sought from
Doug Parker, American’s CEO, to pay for 150 prototype uniforms to be made by Twin Hill for
purposes of conducting a wear test. The wear test was scheduled to take place between January
19, 2015 and March 20, 2015, and that on or about August 11, 2015 to August 15, 2015 the wear
testers would be fitted for their uniforms.
105. Internal American documents show that on or about March 14, 2015, near the end
of the wear test, representatives of the APA along with six APA wear testers/pilots met with
representatives of American. At this meeting the APA told American that it had health and safety
- 23 -
concerns about the Twin Hill uniforms being wear tested.
106. This concern was so great that the APA passed a resolution on March 11, 2015 that
it shared with American and which included a request that the fabric “does not create allergy or
health issues for crews” and that “another pilot wear test and survey with our concerns be addressed
before final decisions are made.” (AA3455-56)
107. In addition, “the APA is asking the company to consider another uniform vendor
other than Twin Hill” as they cited several health and safety concerns. (AA2749) Brady Byrnes,
upper American management and one who is currently responsible for the current Land’s End new
uniform rollout, attended this meeting and reported about it to, among others, Cathy Schillinger
and Suzanne Boda. Ms. Schillinger was also part of upper level American management.
108. In response to this report, rather than acknowledging the validity of the APA’s
concerns, Boda essentially said that they would ignore those concerns: “There are some other
things going on here but bottom line is that we can listen to their input but we have to manage the
program accordingly.” (AA2749 (emphasis added)) Or, in other words, listen but ignore and go
ahead with the program and rollout, which is what they did.
109. With regard to the APA’s citing to the Alaska Airlines event, Boda said, “we have
all the data and analysis that we need to show that the AS incident was isolated (and history at this
point).” But American had no data—other than Twin Hill’s erroneous assurance that the claims
made by the flight attendants in the Alaska Airlines matter were bogus. In this regard, the Harvard
School of Public Health reported in January 2018 that the Twin Hill uniforms were the cause of
the illnesses experienced by the Alaska Airlines employees. Yet, today knowing this to be the case
with regard to the Alaska Airlines incident and knowing full well that the same has happened to
thousands of its employees and is currently happening to thousands of proximity reactors like
- 24 -
Plaintiffs, whom American knows by name are currently suffering, American continues to cause
injury to its employees.
110. In fact, during the meeting with the APA its representative referred to the fact that
in addition to Alaska Airlines, problems were being reported with NetJet uniforms made by Twin
Hill as well as complaints made by the Teamsters Union about “BTW” uniforms (presumably
uniforms for “below the wing” employees, i.e., ground crews) made by Twin Hill.
111. Internal American documents show that the APA shared survey results from its
wear testers concerning health issues that arose in connection with this first wear test. One
document, dated March 17, 2015, and provided to American’s managers Fernandez, Alder, Boda
and Schillinger notes: “One of the core concerns raised by the APA is the wear test garments have
caused skin and respiratory health complications in some of the wear testers.” (AA2775)
(emphasis added).
112. Thus, at an early stage, American’s management was made aware that the Twin
Hill uniforms were causing adverse health effects other than rashes, including, as noted above,
respiratory issues. Soon thereafter American management was provided with reports of severe
headaches as well as people being hospitalized as a result of exposure to the Twin Hill uniforms
during the wear test.
113. American ignored these other symptoms as in each of the testing requests it made
to Intertek it limited testing to whether there were chemicals that caused skin problems. Even
though Intertek told American that its testing could not even confirm safety for skin illness, the
fact is that, though fully aware of these other symptoms being caused by the Twin Hill uniforms,
American never tested for these or examined the actual people. Instead American falsely touted
the Intertek testing results proved the uniforms were safe when it knew and knows they were not.
- 25 -
And the Intertek test results were alarming, as discussed below—Intertek found the presence of 59
chemicals in the uniforms but could not identify 6 of them—all it could say was that these 6 were
volatile organics—chemicals that cause all of the symptoms reported by reactors here and
chemicals that threaten serious long-term health consequences such as cancer.
114. American, when confronted with this information, did not elect to accept Intertek’s
offer to do additional testing to try to identity these highly dangerous chemicals though it was a
term of their engagement letter with American.
115. The APA conducted a survey of its wear testers after the first wear test, which it
shared with American after the wear test. The APA asked wear testers to rate the uniforms for
health issues on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the worst. Not one garment was rated a 10 when the
results were summarized, meaning there were survey participants that had health and safety
concerns with regard to each garment. In particular, several garments worn by females had ratings
below 5—meaning that half of the female participants had bad health experiences with several
Twin Hill garments. (AA2775) American knew that its above the wing workforce was
predominantly female given the make-up of its flight attendant population.
116. The APA health survey results showed that none of the garments had a rating higher
than 7, meaning that even for the best rated garments 30% of the wear testers had health problems
with test garments and the other garments were rated worse.
117. American acknowledged, internally, that it too was aware of problems with some
garments as a contemporaneous internal document, shared with high level management, stated,
“We have received feedback during the wear test that the hat and scarf are hot to wear.” (AA2775)
Yet American disregarded this and plowed ahead.
118. Tellingly, American characterized the APA survey results as “there are not major
- 26 -
concerns with their garments as all received 70%+ approval.” (AA2775) Apart from the fact that
this was patently not true, from this memo it is clear that American set its safety criteria as being
that 70% health safety was acceptable.
119. Rather than halting the process, Boda and Fernandez approved a round of testing
by Intertek—but it does not appear that American sent even one doctor to examine those who were
reacting.
120. However, Fernandez, Adler and Boda did request and receive approval from
Parker, Isom, Kerr (CFO) and Nocella (CMO) to hire a full-time consultant to monitor the
manufacture of the uniforms outside of the United States, justifying this because the supply chain
is “very complex” with fabric made in the EU and Asia that is then shipped to Indonesia, China,
Sri Lanka and Vietnam, where different factories are located with finished garments shipped to
Twin Hill in Houston “for final work, packaging and distribution. . . .” (AA9350-51)
121. And it appears that they did hire such an individual, but it also appears that this
individual merely stayed in Houston at the Twin Hill warehouse.
Intertek Testing April 1, 2015 Report
122. Instead, American went to the well of Intertek testing, yet in the end all American
asked Intertek to test for were chemicals that might provoke skin reactions, even though American
knew that the reported symptoms included far more than just skin problems. For example, in
communicating with Intertek, American noted that, “In some cases American Airlines employees
indicated that they had a rash when wearing uniforms.” (AA2747)
123. Intertek’s response made clear that its assignment was to find unlikely, possible, or
unknown chemicals in the context of their provoking skin irritation or skin sensitization.
(AA10236)
- 27 -
124. The testing was done on a rush basis and resulted in the first warning sirens—as
Intertek found that there were chemicals, sensitizers, that, as it said in a perfect tautology, could
provoke allergic reactions if people were allergic to them.
125. Based upon contemporaneous communications Intertek told American that it had
found 59 chemicals present but could not identify 6 of them—something that on its own should
have been particularly alarming because, as Intertek told American, the Chemical Abstract
Services Registry (“CARNS”) currently has the identities and assigns numbers to more than 129
million organic and inorganic substances.
126. Thus, Intertek could not identify in this registry 6 chemicals from garments made
by Twin Hill and told American that it would limit its report to the 53 chemicals it could identify.
For example, in its April 1, 2015 report Intertek found what it called “unknown aromatics”,
“possible low molecular weight branched hydrocarbons”, and unidentified “hydrocarbons” in the
garments. (AA9935-36)
127. Either or both aromatics and low molecular branched hydrocarbons pose serious
health risks through the air as opposed to contact with the skin. Because Intertek was instructed to
look for and discuss only chemicals that provide skin problems due to contact there is little to no
discussion of these “unknown” chemicals and certainly no discussion of what dangers might be
associated with such chemicals.
128. These categories of unknown chemicals can provoke precisely the cascade of
symptoms experienced by Plaintiffs and the thousands of employees who have and are currently
reacting to the Twin Hill uniforms.
129. The 2015 testing and the fact that there were unknown aromatics and branched
hydrocarbons should have rung alarm bells that there was something seriously wrong with what
- 28 -
Twin Hill was producing for American.
130. Intertek warned American about this, as its toxicologist put it in writing:
I have now had a look through the information from Paula's lab. Removing duplicates,
there appears to be 59 chemicals but only 53 are described by Chemical Abstract Services
Registry Numbers (CASRNs), so our assessment would be limited to the 53 with CARSNs.
The proposed scope of our assessment would be to determine whether these 53 substances
have "unlikely", "possible" or "unknown" potentials to cause "irritation" (i.e., an acute
contact property) or "sensitization" (i.e., an allergic-type property), using existing
information in readily available literature from the public domain. Our report would
comprise a brief cover letter that describes the background and scope of our research,
accompanied by a table that lists the 53 compounds and the assigned categorization
potentials (i.e., as "unlikely", "possible" or "unknown") for "irritation" or "sensitization".
(AA10236)
131. Thus, American was told in simple English that Intertek was unable to identify 6 of
the 59 chemicals it found in the Twin Hill uniforms and that as a result it was limiting its report to
whether the 53 that it could identify would cause skin problems. It was also told that there were
chemicals in the Twin Hill uniforms that could cause reactions.
132. In addition, it is myopic to focus on any one chemical as the purported cause of any
symptoms or particular symptoms, as two or more chemicals can combine and synergistically
contribute to these reactions as several chemicals present in the uniforms are known auto-immune
and allergic sensitizers. Similarly, it is an insufficient explanation to claim that some or all of the
chemicals found in the uniforms may be in other items of clothing sold to the consuming public,
and thus the uniforms must be safe because this (1) ignores that these uniforms and the 20 or so
items that are offered have unique chemical make-ups different from other clothing—even
different from clothing previously made by Twin Hill; and (2) ignores that there may be a chemical
or chemicals present in these uniforms that have yet to be detected—because it is essentially
impossible to test for such chemicals post-production.
133. The budget for the toxicologist assessment was $17,500. (AA10236-37) The total
- 29 -
budget for all the work done by Intertek was $62,500. (AA10245) Given that American was
spending tens of millions of dollars on the uniforms (Fernandez reported an initial cost of $73.4
million and a recurring yearly cost of $13 million), this was woefully inadequate.
134. But because upper level management was more concerned with getting the
uniforms rolled out per their “aggressive” rollout schedule, it is now clear that all American wanted
from Intertek was a piece of paper that it could proclaim to its employees showed that the uniforms
were safe, when American knew that this piece of paper did nothing of the sort.
135. Thus, as of May 2015, American had conducted one wear test that had gone poorly,
and spent $62,500 on testing with Intertek, but never once spoke to or had doctors examine those
who had reacted. This began a pattern on American’s part to consciously follow a path of “see no
evil, hear no evil.” But that would blow up in its face as the facts below demonstrate.
136. American was undaunted by these results. American decided to move forward with
Twin Hill, and to conduct a second wear test to begin in September 2015, which it actually started
a few months later. (AA3625)
Second Wear Test
137. The second wear test would involve over 500 wear testers, including pilots and
flight attendants production level Twin Hill uniforms.
138. The returns on this wear test were far worse than the first wear test. So much so that
out of desperation, line employees were directly emailing upper level management about their
reactions during the wear test.
139. For example, shortly after the completion of the second wear test, on or about
- 30 -
January 28, 2016, “redacted”3 wrote to Brady Byrnes of American. The writer first refers to the
UPS and Alaska problems and then tells Byrnes that during the wear test he broke out in a rash on
his neck and arms and at first assumed it was due to a wool allergy and that “I recall telling you
about this, also made note of this in my comment sheets and thought it was strange as the wool in
our current uniforms do not bother me. I in fact had to stop wearing prototypes 3 weeks early as I
could no longer stand the rash and itching issues. I felt like I was being stung by a swarm of bees.
A few days after stopped wearing the rashes and itchiness cleared up.” He then also refers to others
posting photos of their reactions online. (AA10178)
140. This was yet another alarm bell, but Byrnes’s response and those in upper
management with whom he shared this exchange is emblematic of American’s disregard for the
welfare of its employees. Byrnes forwarded this exchange to Fernandez, Adler and Boda, telling
them that he thought this was the third email he had received since Monday of that week [this was
Wednesday]. And he wrote further:
Originally I thought this was a one off, as we dealt with these rumors back in April
of 2015, but it appears it's revved back up. Specifically, it seems to be circulating
in LA, and has reached Facebook. At a minimum, I would suggest an official Twin
Hill statement, along with full garment testing, but certainly open to your guidance/
suggestions. Unfortunate timing ... since reaction to the collection has been so
positive during the fit tour.
(AA10177)
141. Byrnes reference to “rumors” from April 2015 was telling. What happened in April
2015 were not rumors but a full blown report of a survey from the APA showing that many
employees had health reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms they had wear tested.
142. The responses of his superiors were even worse. Boda responded:
3
American blocked the names of all persons who reported reactions in its production to
Plaintiffs’ counsel but it knows the names of all of the persons in the sundry similar
communications that poured in as time went on—both pre-rollout and post-rollout.
- 31 -
This is too bad, as you say. We need to educate and disprove this theory as it will
inevitably keep coming up. Can TH provide us evidence that we can use to provide
'proof' to all that the fabric is not treated chemically?
(AA10177)
143. To upper level management, the fact that American’s wear testers were
experiencing adverse health effects from the Twin Hill uniforms, just like had happened in the
previous wear test, was a “theory” that needed to be disproven because, as American management
noted, it would keep recurring. In other words, rather than address this serious health crisis that
American was about to unleash, American’s response was to use public relations to drown out the
cries for help and cynically diminish it as rumors and mere theories.
144. Boda’s attempt to seek from Twin Hill “proof” that the fabric was not treated
chemically was the first of several efforts to falsely portray the uniforms as safe. Boda knew, as
did other American managers, dating back a year earlier to the April 2015 Intertek test results, that
the uniforms were treated with numerous chemicals, including 6 that were unknown but dangerous
volatile organic chemicals.
145. This email from “redacted” was just the first of many reports of adverse reactions.
Numerous other “redacted” complaints flowed in from this point until just before the September
2016 rollout—employees were reporting having reactions just from going to their fittings for the
new uniforms or when they received their uniforms at their homes in late summer 2016. American
knows all of these people by name, but it has withheld their names from this Court and Plaintiffs.
146. American’s disregard for the health and welfare of its employees is further
evidenced by additional email exchanges on this topic. Cathy Schillinger, another American upper
level manager, asked if there were any results from this second wear test regarding health issues,
as it was her memory that the 2015 wear test only had one female pilot complaint. (AA10170)
This recollection was completely wrong but reflected upper management’s continuing disregard
- 32 -
of (a) the red flags raised by the 2015 wear test and (b) the APA’s pleas to American to not go
with Twin Hill because of the adverse health effects it had on its pilot wear testers.
147. On or about March 14, 2016, another “redacted” wrote to Fern Fernandez about
breaking into hives and rashes while being fitted for the Twin Hill uniforms and that it could not
be due to an allergy to wool (the party line that American was telling people at the time who
reported adverse reactions). “Redacted” also told Fernandez that she had been home for five hours
and she was still reacting. Fernandez forwarded this email to Byrnes to respond and he, as usual,
dismissed the fact that she was reacting, instead claiming that the uniforms were safe because they
had been tested. (AA10395-96)
148. Yet, the email, as well as others, prompted American to accelerate the results of its
next round of Intertek testing. Not out of health concerns but because American wanted to yet
again paper over this and then falsely claim that the uniforms had been proven safe two times.
Intertek Testing April 5, 2016 Report
149. On April 5, 2016, American received the second Intertek report. If the April 2015
Intertek rang alarm bells, the April 2016 report sounded air raid sirens. In addition to finding
chemicals present that were proven “sensitizers” (which meant that people who were allergic to
them would react consistent with the rashes being reported), the second Intertek report also found
an overwhelming presence of unknown chemicals. (AA10409)
150. The second Intertek report dispelled any claim that the uniforms would not cause
skin problems—the only thing that it was asked to look for—even though it claimed that its testing
indicated that none of the chemicals exceeded OEKO-TEX limits. To the contrary, the report stated
to American that with the sensitizers it had found in the uniforms, it made no difference what levels
of chemicals were found in the garments, because if a person was “sensitized” that person would
- 33 -
react according to their level of sensitization to that particular chemical. And sensitization
increases over time with additional exposure. (AA10409)
151. Moreover, no entity, not Intertek or anyone else other than Oeko-Tex, can test for
compliance with the Oeko-Tex limits; such testing is proprietary to Oeko-Tex. As discussed below,
Oeko-Tex turned down American’s request to test in the late summer or early fall of 2016 precisely
because post-production testing, as opposed to contemporaneous monitoring and spot testing
during production, cannot confirm the safety of the garments.
152. In fact, for those sensitized to the Twin Hill uniforms, this sensitization becomes
worse as the exposure continues. Here, virtually everyone who has reported to American as a
reactor is at risk to ever increasing sensitization even if they are no longer wearing the Twin Hill
uniforms and even if they are not proximity reactors. In the future, even after the Twin Hill
uniforms are removed from the workplace, they will be sensitized to these chemicals such that
even small amounts will trigger reactions. In short, all reactors are at risk of a living hell going
forward as they continue to be exposed to the Twin Hill uniforms and their tolerance decreases
such then when they come in contact with items containing very small amounts of such chemicals
in everyday items, like shaving cream, cosmetics and other garments, they will react like they react
now. American knows this today.
153. In addition, people who are not reactors now may develop sensitization at some
point in the future.
154. In short, in addition to knowing by name many proximity reactors, including
Plaintiffs in this case, who are harmed every day by being forced to work around these toxic
uniforms, American is knowingly harming or at least subjecting every American flight attendant,
pilot and gate agent to the risk of serious harm on a daily basis. American has known this both
- 34 -
before the rollout and post-rollout.
155. Although Intertek noted that these chemicals were in “sub threshold levels,” again
only focusing on skin issues as it was not instructed to look for chemicals that were the cause of
such things as the reported respiratory problems, Intertek warned: “If individuals wearing the
articles of clothing are allergic to the chemicals, it is possible to cause a rash to occur [sic].”
(AA10409)
156. Thus, Intertek told American that the uniforms were unsafe for the persons who
were sensitive to these chemicals and that exposure to sensitizers is cumulative with sensitivity
increasing from continued exposure. Yet, American never once inquired as to whom those people
might be or what their profiles were or what the implications were for continued and cumulative
exposure to these chemicals. Nor did American take any steps to inform its employees about these
risks—though it clearly knew that they existed. Instead, American repeatedly and falsely claimed
to its employees that the uniforms were proven to be safe by the very Intertek reports that told it
otherwise.
157. Moreover, the second Intertek report showed that virtually every garment was
found to have one or more unknown volatile/semi-volatile compounds:
a. unknown volatile/semi-volatile—30 garments;
b. unidentified hydrocarbons or other hydrocarbons–18 garments;
c. unknown aromatics—21 garments;
d. aromatics [but not identified]—9 garments; and
e. aromatic Nitrile—3 garments but all approx. 100ppm and three
commonly worn garments (male coat in both the neck and sleeve,
female parka with fur, male AWL pilot in both the neck and sleeve).
- 35 -
158. The NIH reports the following with regard to volatile organic compounds
(“VOCs”) like those identified by Intertek:
Short-term exposure to various VOCs may cause:

 Irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract
 Headaches
 Dizziness
 Visual disorders
 Memory problems
Long-term exposure to various VOCs may cause:

 Irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat
 Nausea
 Fatigue
 Loss of coordination
 Dizziness
 Damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system
 Cancer
Volatile Organic Compounds, TOX TOWN,

https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=31 (last visited Oct. 4, 2018).
159. Many of the above symptoms noted by NIH are the symptoms that were reported
to American by its employees before and after the rollout.
160. Further, with regard to the unknown chemicals, Intertek wrote:
As noted above, chemicals without a CAS number could not be assessed: however,
as the aromatic nitriles were noted to be present in amounts up to 100 ppm Intertek
was requested by American Airlines to provide some information on these
substances. The “aromatic nitriles” is insufficient to determine the actual identity
of the substance or substances; however, for purpose of this assessment it was
assumed that the nitrile group was directly bonded to the aromatic ring. A
representative structure, benzonitrile, which is the simplest substance that could be
considered an aromatic nitrile, was assessed for sensitization. In addition, literature
searches and internet searches were conducted using the general term “aromatic
nitriles” and irritation and sensitization search terms.
(AA9929) The paragraph abruptly ends here—without any further discussion.
161. Based on the undisputed fact that there were chemicals in the Twin Hill uniforms
that were not even identifiable or registered with the CARNs, American was on notice that there
- 36 -
was something seriously wrong with the Twin Hill uniforms. At a minimum, American should
have ordered further investigation into what these chemicals actually were as was offered by
Intertek.
162. No such testing was requested. From the beginning, American’s management was
more concerned with “proving” that the uniforms were safe than in finding out why they were
causing all of the reported reactions.
163. For example, after this testing came in—rather than express concern for the health
and welfare of the employees American was about to expose to these toxic uniforms, American
upper level management suddenly asked about whether the factories where the “fabrics” were
made had their Oeko-Tex certificates up to date because they appeared to have expired and the
“optics” would not look great. American’s Byrnes wrote to Szparaga of Twin Hill: “This is very
serious. We need to squash employee concern immediately, and it would seem these certificates
should be readily available ... no?” (AA3910 (emphasis added))
164. Again, as exemplified throughout this event, American management was more
concerned about optics and appearances of safety rather than safety itself. Rather than address
evidence of serious health risks to its employees, American sought to “squash employee concern
immediately.” Id.
165. With regard to the unknown aromatic nitriles, Intertek selected benzonitrile as a
representative aromatic nitrile in its report to American. The NIH discussion of benzonitrile on its
website makes clear the dangers of such a substance. After a skull and crossbones sign, the NIH
posts the following on its website regarding benzonitrile:
Signal: Danger
GHS Hazard Statements
H227: Combustible liquid [Warning Flammable liquids]
H302: Harmful if swallowed [Warning Acute toxicity, oral]
- 37 -
H312: Harmful in contact with skin [Warning Acute toxicity, dermal]
H315: Causes skin irritation [Warning Skin corrosion/irritation]
H319: Causes serious eye irritation [Warning Serious eye damage/eye
irritation]
H331: Toxic if inhaled [Danger Acute toxicity, inhalation]
H335: May cause respiratory irritation [Warning Specific target organ toxicity,
single exposure; Respiratory tract irritation]
H371: May cause damage to organs [Warning Specific target organ toxicity,
single exposure]
H373: Causes damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure
[Warning Specific target organ toxicity, repeated exposure]
H402: Harmful to aquatic life [Hazardous to the aquatic environment, acute
hazard]
Benzonitrile, PUBCHEM,
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/benzonitrile#section=Safety-and-Hazards (last
visited Oct. 4, 2018) (emphasis added).
166. In other words, a representative aromatic nitrile would cause all of the reported
symptoms and was listed as dangerous as well as posing the threat of organ toxicity from repeated
exposure. Moreover, aromatic nitriles like benzonitrile as well as any of the other unknown
chemicals raise the specter of long-term health risks including cancer to all employees who work
in or around these toxic uniforms.
167. American management did not communicate any concern about these dangers. Nor
did American, at any time, warn its employees of the exposure that American had, and was going
to continue, to subject them to. To the contrary, American contended, and still falsely claims, that
the uniforms are safe.
168. The Intertek reports were by definition incomplete because American limited
Intertek’s testing to skin irritation or sensitization. As a result, the Intertek reports do not discuss
the myriad of dangers caused by these chemicals. And with regard to the effects of just one of
these unknown chemicals, Intertek’s discussion of aromatic nitriles ends in mid-thought without
- 38 -
any conclusion.
169. In a May 18, 2016 email to Fernandez, Boda and Adler, Byrnes twisted the Intertek
report to suit American’s desire to move forward with the rollout, reporting: (1) that “[c]hemical
compounds can be found in all garments” even “organic” ones; (2) that the Twin Hill garments are
Oeko-Tex certified; and (3) that the uniforms were 100% safe. (AA4002)
170. But Fernandez, Boda, Adler and Byrnes knew that those assertions were wrong
because: (1) there were unidentified chemicals in the Twin Hill uniforms; (2) only the fabric, not
the garments, came from Oeko-Tex certified factories (and then only 12 out of 14) and it appears
that the fabric was a special/custom fabric (likely to save money) that was not subject to the Class
II certificates that these mills had; and (3) the Intertek report made no such claim that the uniforms
were 100% safe. (AA4002)
August 2016 Final Rollout Preparations
171. Shortly afterwards, as uniforms began to be distributed pre-September 2016, and
as uniform fittings took place, complaints started flowing in from those who had begun to receive
their uniforms starting in early summer 2016.
172. On August 5, 2016, Hector Adler received an email from “redacted” that stated:
Many flight attendants who have received their uniforms are having reactions to
the material. The uniform is itchy; especially the blue sweater which I could not
tolerate at all. I tried washing it to see if that would soften it up and remove excess
dye. It didn’t help at all…. Incidentally when I had my uniform fitting I broke out
in blotches all over my face reacting to the uniform…. Many people are posting on
Facebook that they too are having the same problems. They are contacting the
APFA, their base uniform coordinators, and individual managers to find a solution.
(AA10410-11)
173. Adler’s response was the same as before—more concerned about bad publicity and
his inconvenience rather than the health of American’s employees. Thus, he forwarded the email
- 39 -
to Byrnes and the rest of the Fernandez, Adler and Boda team saying:
The groundswell is growing. I have been responding to wash the sweater per the
care instructions on the label, but no [sic] sure what else to say. We are going to
have to set a process to respond to these emails as I cannot keep up with the volume
– as many as following when we unveiled the original KF design. Ugh!
(AA10410 (emphasis added))
174. Twin Hill knew about these problems, as Sirakova of American sent an email the
very same day informing Twin Hill that “there have been some complaints in the field in regards
to the new uniform causing itching and discomfort … So we will send some garments for testing
AGAIN!” (AA4014)
175. In the authorization document seeking approval from American upper level
management to pay for this now third round of testing it stated to them, “Uniforms team and
management teams from the various uniformed workgroups have received reports from the field
of the new uniforms causing adverse reactions to employees . . . Alleged reactions have included:
asthma attacks, skin reactions such as hives and rashes, hospitalizations, etc.” (AA4042 (emphasis
added))
176. Thus, one month before the formal rollout in September 2016, American and Twin
Hill upper level management knew that there had been reports of “asthma attacks, skin reactions
and hospitalizations.”
177. The authorization document further stated that:
While previous testing has been done before, it did not include the full range of
garments from the production lines and compare them to similar retail garments….
With reports of employees suffering adverse reactions, it behooves AA to verify
again that the new uniforms are indeed safe for employees.
(AA4042)
178. The document further revealed American management’s disdain for those
- 40 -
employees who complained about the uniforms: “Employees who dislike the new uniforms may
be using Twin Hill’s history with Alaska Airlines as an excuse to avoid wearing the new uniforms.”
(AA4042)
179. The result was despite (a) that the two wear testings had shown that people were
going to adversely react to the uniforms and (b) volumes of people were now in fact reacting to
the uniforms, American’s view was that affected employees were apparently feigning injury
because they did not like the Twin Hill uniforms thus continuing American management’s disdain
and open hostility to those employees who were suffering and who would thereafter suffer.
180. The funding request document providing the justification for the testing exposes
the purpose of the testing—marketing not safety. The testing was purely motivated to assist
marketing the Twin Hill uniforms to its workforce and not motivated out of concern for the health
of the known employees who were already suffering: “Proactive testing of garments can mitigate
any employee concerns about the safety of the new uniforms that they may be hearing from
coworkers.” (AA4043)
181. And the document made clear why American wished to mitigate any employee
concerns: “Poor employee perception may shorten the lifespan of the collection, reducing the
effectiveness of the investment thus far.” (AA4043) In short, at this point it was all about saving
American’s investment in the Twin Hill uniforms and not about the safety of its employees.
182. If American management were truly concerned about the safety of its employees,
American would have done additional testing and postponed the rollout until the results were
provided. American did not.
183. Unfortunately, this was just the beginning of the deluge of pre-rollout information
American knew about the dangers of the Twin Hill uniforms.
- 41 -
184. On August 17, 2016, the top APA health officer wrote to American: “We are
experiencing a large quantity of issues regarding the new uniforms. I’d like to come to DFW to
discuss what is transpiring and work on some solutions. Items I would like to discuss include:
“.…strong chemical or musty smell to many uniforms . . . intolerable itching.” (AA4016-17
(emphasis added))
185. A meeting was held on August 31, 2016 between representatives from the APA,
American and Twin Hill. The entire meeting concerned the ill-health effects of the Twin Hill
uniforms. American ignored whatever concerns were raised by the APA, as the rollout continued
forward.
186. On September 7, 2016, American received a report of a flight attendant becoming
“very ill” as a result of her reaction to the Twin Hill uniform. (AA10519)
American Unleashes the Twin Hill Uniforms on an Unsuspecting Workforce
187. On September 19, 2016, American officially rolled out the Twin Hill uniforms to
its entire Above-the-Wing workforce of approximately 70,000 employees. American did this in
spite of, to name a few red flags: (a) the adverse events reported from the two wear tests; (b) the
Intertek testing that revealed the uniforms contained both unknown chemicals and chemicals
known to cause the reported initial symptoms as well as pose a risk of serious harm; and (c) pleas
from its unions to use a different supplier. The results were predictable, and terrible for American’s
workforce, including Plaintiffs.
188. On September 21, 2016, “redacted” wrote to Hector Adler:
I am writing directly to you with a problem many of us are having with the new
blue uniform sweater….. Now for the bigger issue. I am not allergic to wool, so I
cannot use the “allergic to wool” as an excuse. I have washed both blue sweaters
six times. Twice in a vinegar solution … [rinsed in hair conditioner and woolite]…
They are still too itchy to wear. … You are probably unaware, there are many
comments on Facebook with many people complaining about the blue sweaters.
- 42 -
(AA9478)
189. Adler’s response was dismissive. Adler responded that he did not know what the
problem could possibly be as thousands were not having a problem with the uniform, and referred
her to Byrnes. Adler complained about the amount of the reaction complaints he was receiving
because, “the volume is growing beyond what one person can reasonably handle.” (AA9477)
190. Also on September 21, 2016, another “redacted” wrote to Adler. The person liked
the color and design of the uniform, but the heavy zip sweater was “torturous” and “incredibly
uncomfortable against the skin.” (AA10527)
191. Adler’s response was misleading. Adler stated: “Over 70,000 individuals are
involved with this program and there are no complaints from work groups other than flight
attendants.” (AA10526). This was false; pilots had complained about uniforms from the first wear
test. Adler also claimed: “All the fabrics were tested for irritants and sensitizers.” (AA10526) This
was also false; only some fabrics were tested, and the testing discovered irritants and sensitizers.
192. As of three days after the official rollout on September 19, 2016, 15 reaction
complaints had been filed. But American did not accept that these complaints were legitimate.
Instead, American’s Fernandez raised suspicions about the employees: “Do we have any other info
on these employees? Past issue with uniforms etc.” (AA9485)
193. On September 29, 2016, the APFA informed American that it had 400 adverse
reaction reports from the flight attendants it represented. Cathy Schillinger provided this
information to American’s CFO, Derek Kerr. (AA2154) Kerr took no action to halt or delay the
rollout, but instead committed to spending another $2 million on testing by Intertek.
194. Later that same day on September 29, 2016, Byrnes shared a letter sent by the
APFA to Twin Hill with Fernandez, Adler and Boda. (AA2166) If there was any plausible way for
- 43 -
American to continue to deny the problems being experienced with the Twin Hill uniforms, the
letter from the APFA ended any such possible inference. APFA reported, in pertinent part, that
“Our flight attendants are reporting multiple illnesses, serious allergic reactions, and severe skin
complications which they associate with your uniforms. They are sick.” (AA2168)
195. After noting that the APFA reached out several times to Twin Hill for testing
information regarding the uniforms, APFA further noted: “Your company has stonewalled us,”
concluding “Twin Hill’s lack of response further reflects a willful and wanton disregard for the
health of its end users…. Help us help our flight attendants.” (AA2168)
196. American’s reaction—like it had been since the beginning—was to ignore these
desperate pleas and treat them as hostile attacks on American and Twin Hill.
197. On October 2, 2016, the APFA wrote to American concerning a flight attendant
and noted there were 800 adverse reaction reports. APFA related the plight of one flight attendant
as emblematic of others: She had a severe reaction along with eyes swelling and respiratory
problems and her words reflect the fears of the thousands of American employees continuing to
be harmed, as she relates, “not knowing the long term effects of the chemicals are scare [sic] the
hell out of me.” (AA10042-43)
198. On October 3, 2016, the APFA provided another example to Adler concerning the
plight of another flight attendant on three separate trips, “Immediate irritation with itching on arms
and legs with an aggressive burning sensation developing creating pain and discomfort which
proceeds to get worse with each of these past flights. This reactions [sic] is not due to a wool
allergy it is definitely due to the receipe [sic] of toxins on or in the material. This is not normal
….” (AA10557)
199. That same day, John Nikides of APFA sent an email to Adler (continuing an email
- 44 -
chain from October 1, 2016) in which Nikides made the problem clear:
I was appalled to see AA VP of Global Marketing, Fern Fernandez, denigrate the

flight attendants’ and the unions’ legitimate claims …. I can assure you, despite
Ms. [sic] Fernandez’s specious claim, there have been more than 14 cases of
reactions to uniforms reported to the company at LAX alone …. The company
places us into unpleasant potentially unsafe and unhealthy situations on a daily
basis .… Add to that the introduction of a toxic uniform which has already caused
reactions in a statistically significant segment of the workforce …. Please do not
patronize me … saying that the reports are exaggerated or that the company had no
idea of the potential for disaster. More than 600 reports filed in a few days alone
with APFA… with photographs … is not an “exaggeration,” and, further, I am fully
aware of the concerns expressed by the APFA long ago about Twin Hill and reports
of toxicity …. The rashes; irritations; chafing; itching; welts; and sinus and
respiratory problems could potentially be only the tip of the iceberg. If these
uniforms are creating these reactions, what kind of internal reactions will result?
Cancer? Birth defects? Thyroid problems?”
(AA1090-91)
200. The adverse physical reactions to these uniforms were so swift and directly related
to the introduction and use of these uniforms that on October 6, 2016, less than one month after
their introduction “the Company [(American Airlines)] formally recognized today the health
concerns raised by Flight Attendants who have reported experiencing adverse reactions and
symptoms as a result of wearing the new uniform.” (AA1155)
201. As a result of these health concerns, American (1) established a call center to review
individual “concerns”; (2) offered replacement garments of non-wool and/or non-synthetic fabrics
or offered to allow flight attendants to “wear the prior uniform with call center approval”; and (3)
agreed to perform “further random testing of garments” in order to determine what was causing
flight attendants to experience rashes, skin irritation, headaches and other symptoms.
202. By October 10, 2016 even American had received 250 adverse reaction reports.
(AA1171)
- 45 -
203. In the meantime, given the volume of complaints, a reporter with the Chicago
Business Journal began reporting on the problem. American promptly began to consider ways to
diffuse the coverage—even making suggestions internally about trying to influence the reporter,
Lewis Lazare, with gifts. Thus, when John Romantic, an upper level manager at American,
reported the adverse reaction problems news reporting to Elsie Elberwein, Robert Isom and Kurt
Stache, all top level management at American, Elberwein responded with disdain—and a directive:
This is terrific. A minor issue impacting a miniscule number of people .… We’re

not going to keep talking about topic with Lewis and others …. Hector is on board
to go have dinner with Lewis, and those two will get along swimmingly…. Lastly
Hector should take some gifts to Mr. Lewis when he goes, ie a be [sic] pink tie
from the uniform collection or something. He may not accept it but he will
appreciate the gentleman to gentleman gesture.
(AA1199)
204. While it appears that this meeting went ahead, fortunately, it did not influence Mr.
Lazare as he has continued to report on this matter as it has worsened and worsened.
205. The reports of adverse events were not limited to flight attendants. An APA official
wrote to Byrnes and Twin Hill officials on October 13, 2016, regarding numerous pilots reacting
and raised the questions of how could American expect pilots to sit in cockpits for hours while
they are itching and what those pilots should do if their uniforms were unwearable. (AA4329)
206. On October 17, 2016, an APFA representative in charge of handling IODs (injured
on duty reports/workers’ compensation claims) wrote to Jennifer Saddy, head of American’s
workers’ compensation group:
I just spoke with a FA who is having severe allergic reaction to uniform (rashes,
shortness of breath, congestion & coughing etc.). She has never had a wool allergy
and she is fine as long as she is not around new uniform .... She has gone back to
wearing her old uniform …. However, as soon as she is around co-workers wearing
the new uniform on the airplane, she has same symptoms coming back. She even
started having a reaction when she was around her co-worker washing her uniform
pieces… it is keeping her from being able to go to work .… She may be able to be
treated for her reaction, but if the reaction were to occur anytime she is around
- 46 -
her co-workers, as in the way people with peanut allergy react, how is a claim like
hers to be treated?.... Would you please let us know how this type of uniform issue
can be handled on the workman’s comp side? If it is medically substantiated that
she is allergic to the uniform or what is within our uniform, and the IOD approved,
but if she can’t go back to work as a FA due to uniform allergy, then what can be
done for her?
207. Saddy responded with the American party line—that she would need to see the
specifics of the complaint. But from the beginning to today all uniform related IODs/workers’ have
been denied by Saddy, American and its workers’ compensation insurer. (AA1285) And it is of
interest to note that in the beginning American’s in-house doctors were concluding that the
uniforms were causing injuries but were quickly quelled. As a result, American and its workers’
compensation insurer has set up huge roadblocks to each and every IOD by denying them on the
wholly bad faith grounds that such injuries were not work related—primarily because private
doctors, quite understandably, were not able to draw the connection between the uniforms and
their patients’ symptoms because they were only looking at individuals. But American’s doctors
knew that there was a connection only to be promptly throttled.
208. The APFA IOD representative responded, copying Byrnes and Adler:
I was not asking about a particular individual, it was more of a general question
since we have spoken with several FAS who are having reactions when they are
around the new uniform. I understand that you have to look into individual cases,
but I would like to know how it would be handled on work-comp side if we are not
able to return to work due to the severe uniform reactions….We are taking daily
calls from flight attendants who are concerned…last request from us, would you
please share the latest count for uniform IOD filed as well as number for accepted
claims?”
209. This email to American’s management put to rest any doubt that American knew
about the prevalence of proximity reactors by making clear that even after switching out of the
- 47 -
Twin Hill uniforms persons were reacting merely by being “around the new uniform”—though
such complaints had been previously received and ignored by American.
210. Saddy responded that there have been 83 IODs filed to date and 25 denied. But she
did not report any that any had been accepted because none have ever been. (AA1297)
211. On or about October 21, 2016, American and Twin Hill became aware that the
APFA had commissioned its own testing of the Twin Hill uniforms. But instead of welcoming this
potentially new information, American management again exposed their true concern—that
nothing bad about the uniforms be reported. (AA4388) In an email chain of that date American’s
managers Fernandez, Adler, Schillinger and Byrnes discussed how they will have to hire an
“independent” scientist to discuss the APFA’s results if they differ from those of Intertek.
212. Yet, apart from the fact that both rounds of Intertek’s testing missed key chemicals
that were found by the APFA’s testing entity, Intertek’s prior two testing results raised serious
questions about how it conducted its tests and the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms—all of which
was squarely presented to American’s upper level management.
213. As alleged above, in the first round of testing conducted in April 2015, Intertek
found benzyl benzoate, a sensitizer, in the uniforms at levels of 20ppm or below. Then, in the
second round of testing in 2016, Intertek found benzyl benzoate in several garments at 100ppm (a
level in excess of Oeko-Tex limits) including a worn female heavy zip sweater, worn female
cardigan, unworn male jacket and unworn male zipper cardigan. This discrepancy in results was a
huge red flag—what happened that all these garments had levels of benzyl benzoate five times
higher than before and how did they all come to contain it?
214. As a result, in an October 24, 2016 email, American’s Byrnes and Sirakova asked
Twin Hill’s Stilley and Collopy why benzyl benzoate was only found at 20ppm levels in the April
- 48 -
2015 testing but now was found at 100ppm levels. (AA7968) Whether benzoate levels were a
problem was not the entire point—the real question was how could there be such discrepancies by
the same testing group from the same testing entity. And then there were the discrepancies with
the Intertek results and those of other testing entities who were asked, for example, by the APFA,
to test the uniforms, who found chemicals present that Intertek did not find.
215. But American took the opposite tack when informing its employees about what the
testing had shown. For example, in drafting a communication to employees about the Twin Hill
uniforms, it was suggested that employees be told that Intertek had found “a small number of
chemicals that could produce allergic reactions.” Fernandez rejected even that level of disclosure,
and continued on a course of cover-up, suggesting:
I prefer not to infer that these chemicals may cause an allergic reaction so can we
change option 1 to read: “The following chemicals were present in some of our
tested garments. These compounds are commonly found in a wide variety of
cosmetics and personal care products, including baby products, bath products,
soaps, and detergents, makeup, perfumes and deodorants.”
(AA4456)
216. As a result, rather than reveal the truth about what Intertek had found—that there
were known chemicals that would cause reactions and unknown but potentially dangerous
chemicals in the uniforms or that the Intertek testing had been limited by American, American told
its employees: “testing proves American’s new uniforms are safe for employees.” (AA4449) That
was a lie. And American knew that statement was false when made—American knew the testing
did not prove the uniforms were safe and it knew that thousands of American employees were
reporting reactions to the uniforms.
217. Yet, at the very same time, Adler communicated to Romantic internally that he was
concerned that benzyl benzoate was in “both sweaters and tailored garments, which is considered
- 49 -
a sensitizer and could result in an allergic response in certain people.” (AA1352) Moreover, he
now admitted that telling people to order non-wool items was not the answer as “that may not be
the problem at all.” (AA1352)
218. For the very first time (even though wear testers had reported adverse reactions
since 2015), Adler finally suggested that “We also need to send any pictures of the alleged allergic
reactions for evaluation by a medical professional. Did I understand you to say we had some
pictures? If not, we need to ask APFA to send us copies of what they have. It's important that we
do this promptly.” (AA1352)
219. Unfortunately, Adler’s request for photographs did not portend any shift in
American’s attitude towards employee reactors. Adler did not have any physicians evaluate the
pictures for purposes of health evaluations. Nor did Adler use the photographs as a guidepost to
determine what types of reactions were happening in the field. Instead, Adler had them looked at
to determine if they had been photo shopped. Adler subsequently suggested in a meeting with an
APFA representative that the photos were fake. To him and American, thousands of employees
were faking being sick, were sending in fake photos and thus were not reacting adversely to the
uniforms American had forced upon them.
220. American’s actions in this regard shock the conscience and demonstrate an abject
disregard for employee safety.
221. This was best exemplified when Lewis Lazare of the Chicago Business Journal
filed a report noting that the number of flight attendant reactors had risen to 1,300 as of October
26, 2016. Rather than expressing concern that now over 1,000 American employees were suffering
as a result of this grossly harmful decision of theirs, American management expressed anger that
the truth was being reported: “Why is this man allowed to write such nonsense. Did we share our
- 50 -
letter with him?” (referring to their fraudulent communication to employees). (AA1362) Ronald
Defeo of American responded that the APFA is feeding Mr. Lazare information. (AA1365)
222. American’s Foster referred to the Lazare article and suggested to Fernandez, Adler
and Boda that: “We need a toxicologist on hand who is prepared/ready to answer questions driven
from article or letter….” (AA1360) This was consistent with American’s position that the issue of
thousands of employees suffering from this tragic event is a question of “us versus them.”
223. On October 27, 2016, the APFA published the results from its testing entity. Not
surprisingly, the APFA testing indicated that Intertek’s testing had missed the mark.
224. Thus, the APFA testing, which it placed on its website, identified the presence of
pentachlorophenol (PCP), tetrachlorophenols, and trichlorophenols, and free and partially
releasable formaldehyde—chemicals that had never been identified by Intertek at all.
225. That these chemicals were found by the APFA’s testing entity should have been no
surprise to American as pentachlorophenol (PCP), tetrachlorophenol, and trichlorophenols are all
volatile/semi-volatile compounds. All pose cancer risks as well as risks of the very symptoms
experienced by thousands of American employees.
226. Mr. Lazare called American to inquire why the APFA test results differed from
what American had publicly reported (as opposed to what it knew as early as April 2016).
American’s response was a continual spin; American provided the party-line that it was happy that
the APFA testing confirmed the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms. But the APFA testing did not
confirm safety.
227. Moreover, American touted “That our uniforms meet Oeko-Tex 100 requirements”
when nothing could be further from the truth. (AA1434) In fact, a representative from Hohenstein
USA, the entity that runs the OEKO-TEX 100 certification program in the United States, had been
- 51 -
requested by American several days prior to explain to American the OEKO-TEX certification
process, notwithstanding that American had already been touting, falsely, that the uniforms were
OEKO-TEX certified.
228. The Hohenstein representative explained to American that the only way for
American to have gotten such a certification “of all components of all” the garments— would have
had to have been tested at the time of the bidding process and then, “Those companies could then
require it of their fabric and other material producers to get certification and submit representative
samples to our labs for testing.” (AA4501) He also told American that it was Oeko-Tex’s position
that the uniforms could never be proven by post-production testing.
229. Yet, all that Twin Hill had provided were certificates from 10 of the 12 factories
where the fabrics were made – certificates that appear to cover different fabrics from that which
American agreed to and Twin Hill ordered. And even though American had requested Twin Hill
provide information on the garment factories, none was ever given—at least in the documents
produced to Plaintiffs so far.
230. Moreover, the OEKO-TEX process had never been followed with the Twin Hill
garments, yet American continued to falsely claim that they were certified by OEKO-TEX when
they had not. Thus, while American had been publicly touting for months that its uniforms were
safe because of the purported OEKO-TEX certifications, in a communication with Hohenstein
USA—the entity running the OEKO-TEX certification process in the United States—American
was still asking what having the fabric factories OEKO-TEX certified really meant and whether
the chemical and metals in the uniforms would therefore have been certified.
231. The answer to American’s inquiry was simple, and had been explained to American
before: Factory certifications are not fabric certifications, and even then, after the fabric is made,
- 52 -
it is shipped to third-world countries to be processed into garments and additional processing that
too must be verified/certified but never was by American or Twin Hill for that matter. As a result,
any claim that the Twin Hill uniforms met OEKO-TEX’s certification process was false.
232. Notwithstanding the above, American continued to deny all workmen’s
compensation claims. American reported to the APFA on November 9, 2016 that 121 claims had
been filed and 54 had been denied but none granted. Thus, the word got out early on that filing
IODs was a useless endeavor because they were all being denied for such spurious reasons as that
the injuries were not work related.
233. This was part of a cover up by American—a fraud that American has perpetrated
and continues to perpetrate on its entire workforce, including all those that have been injured so
far. Having caused this health crisis by ignoring the wear testing results, its unions’ requests to
change vendors, and the limited testing it procured from Intertek, American acted consistent with
an entity that was now concerned about its workers’ compensation liability and not the health of
its employees.
234. In spite of reporting procedures that provided that employees should report
problems to their respective base managers, some American employees were so desperate for
answers and relief that they communicated directly with upper level management about their
suffering.
235. Thus, on November 11, 2016, “redacted” wrote that she developed a sore throat,
runny nose, and severe headache, to which Mitchell Moss of American responded to her, albeit
falsely, that the uniforms had been wear tested and that “none” of the wear testers “gave feedback
that they were overly itchy, caused rashes or resulted in headaches.” (AA10588) These false
communications were sanctioned by upper level management as they strived to cover-up the
- 53 -
seriousness of the problems with the Twin Hill uniforms.
236. On November 14, 2016, Sirakova sent an email to Fernandez, Adler and Boda.
(AA8127) She noted that she had not heard back from Intertek about the discrepancy between their
testing and that of the APFA’s testing entity, but she informed them about pentachlorophenol
(PCP), tetrachlorophenol, and trichlorophenol, stating that:
 Pentachlorophenol – compound used as a pesticide and a disinfectant

 Tetrachloriphenols [sic] – is used almost exclusively in the wood industry to treat
wood
 Trichlorophenols – is a chlorinated phenol that has been used as a fungicide,
herbicide, insecticide, antiseptic, defoliant, and glue preservative.
 Free and partially releasable formaldehyde - Formaldehyde is mainly used in the
production of industrial resins, e.g., for particle board and coatings. It can be useful
for disinfectant as it kills most bacteria and fungi.
(AA8127)
237. Those chemicals, in addition to being volatile/semi-volatile compounds, can be
toxic. Specifically, Pentachlorophenol, also known as PCP, was first produced in the 1930s as a
pesticide and disinfectant. People may be exposed to PCP through the inhalation of contaminated
air and dermal contact with products treated with the chemical. Short term exposure to large
amounts of PCP can cause harmful effects on the liver, kidneys, blood, lungs, nervous system,
immune system, and gastrointestinal tract. Contact with PCP, particularly in the form of vapor,
can irritate the skin, eyes, and mouth. Long-term exposure to low levels such as those that occur
in the workplace can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, blood and nervous system. PCP is also
associated with carcinogenic, renal, and neurological effects. The U.S. EPA classifies PCP as a
possible carcinogen. Single doses of PCP have half-lives in blood of 30-50 hours in humans.
Wearing of the new uniforms over time can cause the release of this chemical into the cabin air
where it can combine with other vapors caused by the other chemicals in the new uniforms.
238. Tetrachlorophenol is an insecticide and a bactericide that is used as a preservative
- 54 -
for latex, wood, and leather. Symptoms of exposure include irritations of the skin, eyes, nose and
pharynx, and dermatitis with repeated skin contact.
239. Trichlorophenol is used as fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, antiseptics,
defoliants, and glue preservative. It too is listed as a possible human carcinogen. In animal models,
consumption of 2, 4, 6-trichlorophenols leads to an increased incidence of lymphomas, leukemia,
and liver cancer.
240. Formaldehyde is known to be a human carcinogen. While it is widely used in
industrial applications, including as a crease resistant in clothing, the chronic long term exposure
by inhalation can cause a cascade of health issues from skin rashes and respiratory problems to
cancer, as well as causing fatigue.
241. Sirakova also informed Fernandez, Adler and Boda, presumably at their request,
that she was reaching out to Land’s End and Cintas as possible replacements for Twin Hill.
(AA8128) So less than two months after the rollout American was considering replacement
suppliers—but still maintained to its employees that the uniforms had been proven safe.
242. While not noted by Sirakova at the time, it should also be noted that these uniforms
were manufactured in third world countries where oversight is virtually nil, and include
Bangladesh (where the uniform pieces containing chlordane—a banned substance in the United
States since the 1980s—were made), Indonesia, China, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.
243. The chemicals contained in the uniforms also have a cumulative effect as exposure
continues, which has been and continues to occur with those have already reacted as well as all
American employees. This is why some employees are only just now starting to react, even though
they have worn the uniforms without incident for almost two years.
244. In November 2016, American implicitly if not expressly recognized the seriousness
- 55 -
of this problem, reversing its purportedly long planned first company-wide uniform change in 30
years, and announced that it would allow affected employees to change uniforms, either to go back
to wearing their old blue uniforms or buying off the rack pieces that looked like the Twin Hill
uniforms.
245. In short, as of November 2016, American no longer had a consistent uniform being
worn across its workforce—some were wearing the new grey Twin Hill uniforms, others were
wearing the old blue uniforms, and still others were wearing grey approximations of the Twin Hill
uniforms made by off-the-rack clothing manufacturers chosen by each employee.
246. As a result, any interest that American may have had in maintaining any
consistency of the clothing worn by its employees ceased to exist from that point forward.
247. Even though those having adverse reactions were permitted to change out of the
Twin Hill uniforms, many of them continue to experience adverse reactions with increasing
severity because they are near those wearing the new Twin Hill uniforms or in spaces such as
company lounges, vans, jump seats, or crew sleeping bunks on the long-haul planes.
248. This is further evidenced by the fact that after November 2016, thousands more
American Airlines employees reported adverse reactions, including many who had never worn the
uniforms to begin with.
249. As of November 14, 2016, Fernandez, Adler and Boda were told that American had
received 1,197 unique calls to its uniform call center. (AA10068) On November 15, 2016, the calls
had increased to 1,238, causing Tana Edwards of American to complain that it was “very hard on
team to manage and still get their work done.” (AA10080)
250. In fact, on November 16, 2016, Edwards wrote to Romantic and others about a
conversation she had with persons responsible for unpacking the Twin Hill uniforms and placing
- 56 -
them in luggage for new hires. They related to her that when they opened the boxes there was a
“strong smell” and that they all had reactions with their hands and arms handling the uniforms
such that one of them reported that his “forearms and hands got so swollen he had to leave the
room” and it took about an hour for the reactions to subside. (AA1794)
251. On November 26, 2016, Bob Ross, president of APFA, informed American,
including Adler and Romantic, of the results of their testing of the Twin Hill uniforms, telling them
that cadmium levels exceeded the OEKO-TEX limits and there were detectable levels of “nickel,
chromium, nonylphenol, moncholorphenol, pesticides (carbaryl and captafol) formaldehyde
(particularly high levels), alkyphenolethoxylates, trichlorophenols, tetracholorophenols.” None of
this had been reported by Intertek. Ross further noted that “although the additional toxins were not
above the maximum allowable values according to the Oeko-Tex standards, when acting
synergistically together, can make exposure at lower levels significantly more toxic.” (AA8153)
252. Rather than responding with concern, American upper level management internally
decided that they were going to counter the APFA’s message. “Our own results have shown no
cause for concern and my understanding is we continue to have no plans to roll back the uniforms
despite APFA's requests. We are therefore planning a more direct response strategy to refute their
claimed results.” (AA8153) Thus, yet again, American management chose to ignore information
regarding the dangers of the Twin Hill uniforms and instead chose to fight such news.
253. Internal documents show that American management was aware that as of
November 28, 2016, American had received 1,415 unique calls to its call center set up for
employees to report reaction problems with the uniforms. (AA11391)
254. On information and belief, prior to the use of the Twin Hill uniforms, American has
never experienced anything close to the number of employee complaints about uniforms that it has
- 57 -
received about the Twin Hill uniforms, and that the complaints about the Twin Hill uniforms
exceed complaints about previous uniforms by several multiples.
255. A November 30, 2016 communication to American employees signed by
Fernandez, Adler and Boda portrayed the results of the wear testing and claimed that the uniforms
were proven safe. (AA887) This was false. And as alleged above, Fernandez, Adler and Boda
knew their safety claim was false when made; they knew that the uniforms had never been proven
safe, “leaving no doubt that the uniform is safe,” and that reports of adverse reactions were
mounting so much that American was not capable of handling all of them. (Id.)
November 28, 2016 Intertek Testing Report
256. In a panic, after this deluge of pre-rollout reaction complaints, American ordered
yet a third round of testing in the fall of 2016. This testing was reported to American on November
28, 2016. Hohenstein, the company that runs Oeko-Tex, turned down American’s request to test
the Twin Hill uniforms; it appears that it was they who told American that post production testing
of a garment can never prove safety and that when complaints such as these are made post-
production the investigation should turn towards trying to assess, if at all possible, what is or are
the culprits—though they noted that this was like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
257. As a result, American returned to Intertek. Intertek’s November 28, 2016 report
should have sent chills down American’s back. The fall 2016 testing involved comparing the
chemicals found in the Twin Hill American garments, the legacy USAir garments that appear to
have been made by Twin Hill, and off-the-rack clothing that looked similar to the Twin Hill
American garments.
258. The results were bad. The Twin Hill American garments were found to have 8
sensitizers that were not found in the USAir Twin Hill or off the rack garments.
- 58 -
259. In fact, the off-the-rack garments had significantly less sensitizers that either of the
other samples.
260. The report also noted that for these 8 sensitizers that were found only in the Twin
Hill American garments, there were no limits established by Oeko-Tex or H&M. Based upon these
findings the Intertek report communicated to American precisely the opposite of what it
represented to its employees. The Intertek report showed that the uniforms were unsafe and
certainly not in compliance with Oeko-Tex as American claimed in several communications to its
entire workforce. It was likewise false for American to contend that the garments met Oeko-Tex
standards when it knew that there were 8 chemicals for which Oeko-Tex had none.
American Denies All Workers’ Compensation Claims
261. Early on, in the very first month or so, when the first reactors went to in-house
medical staff at American, including doctors, they were told by the medical staff that the uniforms
were causing the reactions and that they should file IODs (workers’ compensation
claims). Plaintiffs are aware of just one such claim that was initially granted by American’s
workers’ compensation insurer, but then it was withdrawn.
262. Thereafter, and to this day, all IODs have been denied—not one workers’
compensation claim has been granted by American or its insurer and for the most part have been
denied as injuries that are not work related.
263. These denials meant that each such person would have had to hire an attorney to
pursue American, on an individual basis, through the arbitration process set up for IODs. But
American knew that any attorney representing just one client, would, unlike most workplace
injuries, have to incur enormous expenses to prove that their individual clients were injured by the
uniforms, and such expenses would outstrip any recovery. Thus, any argument on American’s part
- 59 -
that a workers’ compensation remedy is available to injured employees is cynical, in bad faith and
a ploy to send their claims to purgatory.
American’s Knowledge of Proximity Reactions
264. On November 30, 2016, Robert Isom—the President of American—wrote to the
“senior team” and Kerry Philipovitch, Senior VP, that he had heard that their meeting with the
APFA did not go well: “I know that yesterday’s meeting with the FAS took a turn for the worse.
Will you make sure that Doug, Elise and Steve (and anyone else that wants it) get an update on
situation? Thanks.” (AA854) In response, Philipovitch reported to Isom that the APFA demanded
a full recall of the uniforms in that not only were people wearing the uniforms reacting but that
persons near the uniforms were reacting including employees, customers and family members “in
close proximity to people wearing the uniforms.” (AA865-66 (emphasis added))
265. At this point, it was clear, or should have been clear, to American senior
management that notwithstanding American’s shallow offer to employees to switch to alternative
uniforms, American’s employees would continue to suffer until the uniforms were removed from
the workplace because there were people who were reacting when in proximity to the uniforms.
266. Philipovitch told Isom that they were drafting a response to the APFA for his review
and that:
Our team including Hector, Fern, Suzanne, Ron, John Romantic, Cindi Simone,
Jennifer Saddy, Paul Morrell, Kevin Brickner, Brady Byrnes, Kristen Foster and
perhaps others that I'm missing have spent a tremendous amount of time working
with the APFA this week in an attempt to work collaboratively to address their
concerns. They deserve our thanks (and maybe a medal, as long as it isn't made
from cadmium) for their perseverance, patience, and dedication.
(AA853)
267. Isom did not respond to this email, nor did he comment on the gallows humor about
the medal these people were to receive not being made out of cadmium—one of the dangerous
- 60 -
chemicals found by the APFA in the Twin Hill uniforms.
268. Moreover, if somehow he did not know before, Isom was now fully aware that Twin
Hill uniforms were causing proximity reactions to those persons not even wearing the uniforms.
Thus, tests for skin irritation due to dermal contact—the only tests that American had ever had
performed—were entirely meaningless because, if it had not been clear before (which it was), it
was now clear that the reactions were being caused by off-gassing or vapors as well as skin contact.
269. As evidence of the further desperation of its employees, a flight attendant filed a
complaint with OSHA. In a November 15, 2016, letter to OSHA responding to the complaint,
Michael Hodes of American’s Occupational Health and Safety admitted on behalf of American
what it had publicly denied all along—employees were experiencing far more than just the skin
irritation and allergic reactions for which it had Intertek test: the reactions were “allergic reaction
and other adverse health effect such [sic] welts, rashes, migraines, nausea, sinus problems ….”
(AA9914)
270. Hodes also admitted on behalf of American that during its wear testing of January
2015-March 2015: “A small number of participants reported developing physical symptoms while
wearing the uniforms.” (AA9914)
271. But Hodes was not completely candid with OSHA. Hodes stated that American sent
the fabrics to Intertek for testing to see if the fabric had chemicals that could potentially cause
symptoms; American did not do this, but instead asked Intertek to report on whether there were
chemicals that could cause skin problems. Hodes also failed to mention the 6 chemicals that
Intertek could not identify and, instead, provided a statement that falsely portrayed Intertek as
giving the uniforms a safety confirmation when all it had done was say that Intertek could not find
any chemicals that would have caused skin irritation or sensitization. The letter also contained
- 61 -
half-truths such as that only 193 injuries/illnesses had been reported when over 1,200 had reported
problems to American’s call center as of that date.
272. Moreover, in a report from Byrnes to Fernandez, Adler and Boda on December 1,
2016, Byrnes noted that an independent toxicologist, Dr. Richard Plois, had informed American
that cadmium, a chemical found by the APFA testing “is most often associated with cigarette or
industrial smoke. Cadmium is not transferred via dermis (skin contact) but rather via inhalation.”
(AA5013) This should have rang the alarm bells yet again because from the very first wear test to
the date of this report persons had complained about respiratory problems. Yet, because the
Intertek reports, as ordered by American, were limited to skin irritation issues no mention of
cadmium was even made by them.
273. Meanwhile, the employee unions continued to send reports of employee problems
directly to Fernandez, Adler and Boda, in addition to other upper level management including the
head of American’s workers’ compensation, Jennifer Saddy. On December 1, 2016, Gabby Harty
of the APFA sent another report to Fernandez, Adler, Boda, Saddy and Romantic about a flight
attendant whose IOD had been denied by American but American’s own doctors told him after the
IOD denial that “he could not work with the uniform or near the uniform.” (AA9867) Thus, upper
level management knew that doctors employed by American were recommending that reactors not
work around the uniforms.
274. In a compelling passage, the flight attendant’s reactions were reported to them as
follows: “He is probably my most severe case. We… Chris Nielson and I watched as his body
changed just after being in the crew room. The fact that he is being denied IOD and even FMLA
[Family Medical Leave] to protect his job at this point is unconscionable.” (AA9867) In fact, in a
naked attempt to rid itself of proximity reactors, American recently instituted a new sick leave
- 62 -
policy that reduces the number of sick days and American has strictly enforced this against
reactors. In fact at least one Plaintiff in this action was fired because she had taken too much sick
leave due to uniform reactions and others are at risk of losing their jobs, even though American
knows that their sick leave requests arose out of their reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms.
275. In fact, the email relates that even though this employee’s second IOD was denied,
American’s own doctors concluded that he was “not able to work around current uniforms,” and
was having a “reaction to chemical substance.” (AA9867) The APFA author continued: “In my
honest opinion, is that Ms. Saddy needs to get him help immediately and quit being so proud of
her lower workman’s’ comp claims. Again, in my personal opinion the only reason why claims
are down is because she and Sedgewick refuses them and work with states like NC.” (AA9889)
276. This story is a recurring story for thousands of American employees. American
knows that a significant portion of its workforce is unable to work around the Twin Hill uniforms,
yet continues to deny them compensation and forces them to choose between their jobs or their
health. And, as alleged infra, American knows who many of these persons are, by name, and
continues to require them to work around the Twin Hill uniforms.
277. By December 5, 2016, there were 1,834 unique callers to American’s reaction call
center. (AA9909)
278. On December 9, 2016, the APFA sent yet another email to Fernandez, Adler, Boda,
Saddy and Romantic; more and more flight attendants were reporting reactions. (AA9946)
279. On December 11, 2016, in response to a Byrnes email, Beth Norton, from the
Philadelphia base, complained that she received 15 IOD claims filed in just two days and noted
that those employees were seeking a “cash payout.” (AA10644)
280. Over the next few weeks Norton forwarded over 30 IOD reports to upper level
- 63 -
management in which employees were registering that they not only had rashes, but headaches,
severe migraines, stomach problems, eye and vision problems. For example, on December 15,
2016, yet another desperate flight attendant reported:
I do not appreciate how we are being ignored and being laughed at by our CEO in
the crew news video. This has made my job life threatening. I am not able to be
around anybody in the new uniforms because the formaldehyde shuts down my
respiratory system and I will need an inhaler, oxygen and EpiPen and I am risking
death by being around them …. I like my job and I want to continue w/ my job but
you are not giving me a safe work environment to do that.
(AA10706)
281. Employees were so desperate that they wrote emails directly to Robert Isom,
American’s President. On December 15, 2016, a flight attendant wrote to Isom:
Mr. Isom, I am writing this because of the issues I am having with the new toxic
uniform. Thousands of employees are suffering and we are essentially being told
that the uniform is safe. Testimonials and photos do not seem to have an effect on
getting these recalled. I have infected eyes, scratchy throat, muscle and joint
fatigue, headaches and hives and I don’t even wear the uniform[.] This is from
working next to toxic uniforms. Would you put your family members in this toxic
mess? Flight attendants are subjected to many toxins such as jet fuel and I have
personally been in several fume events. This being said AA is supplying toxic
uniforms which we wear in a closed environment with recirculated air for up to 14
hours a day. I am appalled by the corporate greed that seems to be the number one
concern at this time. Not the lowly flight attendants. Shameful….
282. Thus, in this one email a flight attendant informed Isom, if it was somehow
possible for him to not have been aware of this well before, that thousands of employees were
suffering and that merely giving them the option of wearing non-Twin Hill uniforms was not a
solution as his employees were reacting from just working next to the uniforms.
283. Isom did not take action to remove the uniforms from the workplace. Instead, Isom
forwarded the complaint to Adler, who in turn forwarded it to Romantic with the curt statement,
“One more for response on behalf of Robert,” thereby indicating that Isom himself had been
- 64 -
receiving these pleas on more than one occasion. (AA9969)
284. On December 19, 2016, American management, including Fernandez, Adler and
Boda, received a uniform update noting that 2,761 unique callers had called the American uniform
reaction call center. (AA9970) Just in December alone, the number of calls had spiked 1,400.
American Considers Patch Testing
285. On December 20, 2016, the workers’ compensation group recommended that the
company hire and pay for Dr. Andrew Scheman, a dermatologist in Northbrook Illinois, to prepare
special patch testing directed at determining what chemicals were causing the skin reactions.
286. Dr. Scheman is the only doctor trained in the United States to perform a special
technique of extracting the “essences” of garments such as the Twin Hill uniforms and then
conducting “customized” patch testing to determine if the uniforms were actually provoking skin
reactions, and if so what chemicals were causing them.
287. Again, although such testing would have been limited to skin issues, it would have
been a start. Unfortunately, American halted it in its tracks. American hired and paid for Dr.
Scheman to start preparing the extracts. But then American shut the whole project down,
apparently because upper management did not want to know the answers he might provide or
because his initial results were bad for American.
288. Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted Dr. Scheman to see if he would perform the tests for
them. Dr. Scheman said he would only do so if American permitted him. Subsequently, Dr.
Scheman then informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that American would not give such authorization.
289. This is consistent with an effort by American to avoid robust testing that might
provide answers concerning what chemicals are harming people, which would aid in treatment and
prevention. In other words, American again chose to cover-up the problem rather than try to solve
- 65 -
the problem.
American Seeks To Silence All Critics
290. In a further cover-up effort, American sought to silence the APFA. American
agreed with Twin Hill that Twin Hill should send a threatening letter to the APFA stating that it
would sue the APFA for defamation if it continued on its course of defending its members from
the Twin Hill uniforms. Twin Hill did so in January of 2017 and just as planned, after advocating
so strongly for its members, the APFA backed down out of fear of being sued by Twin Hill. And
the APFA has been conspicuously silent since shortly thereafter.
291. But the APFA was not the only one afraid of Twin Hill. In an internal report dated
January 5, 2017, analyzing American’s options, in discussing terminating Twin Hill’s contract the
major con was cost, purportedly $32 million and, most important, the threat of Twin Hill suing
American. (AA8246) If American changed to a safe uniform supplier, American would have to
pay Twin Hill $32 million for inventory buy-out, would have to pay sick employees via the IOD
process, and would have to buy new uniforms. (AA8246) American chose to save money versus
saving its employees’ health.
292. Schillinger responded to this discussion of terminating Twin Hill by noting that
getting new uniform suppliers on line would take at least three years. (AA2313) It now appears it
may be much longer.
293. As of January 5, 2017, American upper level management was informed that there
were now 3,273 unique callers to the reaction call center set up by American. (AA10761)
294. On or about that time a meeting was set up for Doug Parker and a senior level Men’s
Wearhouse executive (which wholly owns Twin Hill). The meeting was set up to discuss concerns
of Men’s Wearhouse that the uniform problems would damage Men’s Wearhouse’s retail brands.
- 66 -
The talking points prepared for Parker by, among others, Fernandez, Adler and Boda, were to
placate Men’s Wearhouse and Twin Hill and make sure that they understood that American
believed that the uniforms were safe and “we will continue to push that messaging to our
employees.” (AA8362)
295. On or about January 16, 2017, a talking points memo was prepared for Isom to
speak to the American Board of Directors about this health crisis event. The talking points were
designed to minimize the problems in a manner that would present, at best, an incomplete picture
to the Board, including that it just involved a few employees, that it was a “setback” but that three
rounds of testing had proven the uniforms safe. (AA8382) By this time, Isom had received
numerous pleas from various reactors, including proximity reactors, and American had received
thousands of reaction reports.
296. On January 19, 2017, American’s management addressed an email sent by an
employee back in October of 2016 to Isom, asking about what was happening with a survey that
was to be conducted about the uniforms. Further evidencing that upper level management was and
had been fully aware of the scope of the problems, in the middle of the chain it is noted that
American put the kibosh on this survey because at the time—back in October 2016—it was fearful
that “that the survey results would be contaminated by increase in chemical reactions complaints
from the uniform.” (AA8385) So at least as early as October 2017 American knew that the
chemical reactions from the uniforms was happening and that it would be increasing and again
decided to cover it up.
297. On January 20, 2017, an internal email chain amongst upper level management
noted that Bob Ross of the APFA gave an interview where he noted that American knew of the
uniform problems pre-launch in August 2016, which internal American documents confirm all the
- 67 -
way back to 2014-15. Yet, Byrnes falsely claimed that wear testers never reported problems.
Sirakova corrected him, stating that “we had some complaints from pilots after the first wear test
.…” Fernandez, attempting to minimize this, responded that all it had to do with was “shirting”
and that that had been resolved. (AA10029)
298. In a January 23, 2017 email chain Sirakova asked how the APFA knew back in July
2016 that there would be chemical reactions. (AA8393) Of course, the answer was that upper level
management knew this for a long time.
299. On January 23, 2017, Jim Oebker, apparently of the Teamsters union (the union
representing service agents), asked about the uniform problem. This email chain started in
December 2016 when the flight attendant that had started the OSHA complaint process noted that
her doctors were appalled that the uniforms had not been recalled. Oebker asked American what
was being done to resolve allergic reactions to the uniforms. (AA10843) American told him,
falsely, that the uniforms had been tested three times and met or exceeded industry standards, and
that the garments had Oeko-Tex 100 certifications. American knew this statement was false when
made.
300. By January 24, 2017, American had received 3,828 unique callers to its call center.
(AA9811)
301. In response to an email from Kimberly Barboro of the Teamsters, Valerie Dirks of
American admitted, “I do think there are some people that are having a reaction to the uniform.”
(AA10860) Dirks easily reached this conclusion notwithstanding that American’s upper level
management was and had been doing everything possible to deny this to be the case. Dirks also
attempted to minimize her admission by noting that she did not believe there were toxins in the
uniforms that would cause the reactions American was seeing because she had been around the
- 68 -
uniforms 12 hours per day and had not experienced those symptoms. That captures American
management’s view perfectly—because some people, maybe even most people, do not react to the
uniforms, then the uniforms do not contain toxins and must be safe. This infuriated reacting
employees when Hector Adler wore the uniforms for a month and claimed this was proof that they
were safe.
American Considers Alternative Uniforms While Ignoring Proximity Reactors
302. In February 2017, American began to consider offering an alternative uniform
made by Aramark. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the repeated reports of proximity reactions as
alleged above, American continued to ignore proximity reactors.
303. A deck was prepared for Adler to discuss with Isom and Parker about authorization
to purchase alternative uniforms from Aramark. Again, this too was tone deaf, as they all knew
that thousands were proximity reactors.
304. The Aramark alternative offer was all about show and nothing about stopping the
suffering American was causing every day since the summer of 2016. American deliberately
refused to recognize proximity reactions.
305. Notably, prior to this time, both Isom and Parker had received emails from Plaintiff
Joe Catan, an American Pilot for 26 years and former marine, where he had told them point blank
that the Twin Hill uniforms were posing a safety threat in the cockpit due to proximity reactions
that he and others were having.
306. A draft deck prepared for American’s Isom and Parker dispensed with American’s
public story that the uniforms had been proven safe. The report referred to Dr. Scheman and that
his testing would “help determine if employees’ symptoms are related to the uniform and if so, the
potential cause of reaction.” (AA8501) This internal communication was a far cry from what
- 69 -
American was representing to its employees and the public—that testing had definitively proven
the uniforms to be safe. This internal memo showed that American knew that the uniforms had not
been proven safe, and that at least someone at American now wanted to know the answers it should
have asked back in 2015.
307. Yet, American did not follow through with Dr. Scheman’s patch testing and, in fact
as noted previously, American has prevented Dr. Scheman from working with anyone else to help
American’s employees.
308. On February 16, 2017, another desperate American employee wrote directly to
Isom, Parker, Adler and Jill Surdek: “I am now unable to get well for the past few months since
these toxins have built up in my system. I’m sorry, saying that you wore the uniform for a month
and had no reaction is both insulting and condescending.” (AA10187) The author then goes on to
say it took four months for her to react and now she has eye issues and rashes when she is around
the new uniforms that completely go away when she is at home. No reasonable person could think
that providing alternative uniforms made by Aramark was the sole solution because affected
employees were reacting to working in proximity with those who continued to wear the Twin Hill
uniform: “We are no longer able to safely work if others are still in the toxic uniform. We deserve
respect and a healthy environment so we can continue to work at the career we love. We deserve
that type of environment.” (AA10187)
309. Nevertheless, Surdek, on behalf of American senior management including Parker
and Isom, responded to this employee with the suggestion that affected employees wear alternative
uniforms. And the employee reiterated the problem: “For the record again, we cannot work around
others in the greys. Giving those with reactions another option will not fix this problem. The issue
here is toxins in the material, not the type of material.” (AA10186)
- 70 -
310. In an internal response, Surdek commented that there is going to be “continued
noise” like this, as if these pleas are merely noise, and then suggested that American offer leaves
of absence for such employees. (AA10186)
311. In that regard, providing leaves of absence (LOAs) were half-right. While LOAs
would provide people the opportunity to not work in a toxic environment, they would have no
income as a result. Instead, as discussed below, what should be offered, at a minimum, is that
LOAs with full benefits be granted until the Twin Hill uniforms are removed, just like NIOSH
recommended that American do earlier this year.
312. Although American failed to follow through with Dr. Scheman’s testing to help
determine which chemicals were harming its employees’ skin, and failed to provide any relief to
proximity reactors, American did take one step—to help itself. On February 13, 2017, Sirakova
sent justification points, stating American retained a “crisis management/communication firm to
craft employee communications to mitigate this risk.” (AA8549; AA8555) The “risk” was the
“perception that Twin Hill’s garments are not safe.” (AA8545)
313. Around February 21, 2017, Twin Hill again threatened American due to the
reputation damage it was beginning to incur as the result of the bad publicity surrounding its
provision of uniforms to American. (AA8627) Other airlines were apparently reluctant to sign up
with Twin Hill; this actually came to fruition in August 2017 when Twin Hill lost its bid for the
United Airlines account to Brook Brothers.
The Complaints Continue to Grow
314. In a revealing internal email exchange on or about February 26, 2017, American
management asked its base managers to provide their estimates of the percentages of persons who
were reacting. (AA9845-46) This question should have been asked on multiple occasions: (a) in
- 71 -
2014 when the first wear test resulted in ill-health for wear testers; (b) in 2015 when the same thing
happened with regard to the second wear test; (c) in the summer of 2016 when reports of adverse
reactions were coming in before the official rollout; and (d) every day thereafter as reports
continued to be made. That it was not asked until five months into this event is further evidence of
the intentional disregard that American management had for the health and welfare of its
employees.
315. The answer to American management’s belated request was startling: the answer
was “approximately 20% not in uniform with about 5% who say they are having issues being
around the new uniform.” (AA9846) Simple arithmetic means that American was aware that
approximately 20% of its 70,000 plus employees were reactors (as not being in uniform was an
obvious euphemism for reactors)—or 14,000 people and that 3,500 were proximity reactors.
316. Around the same time, on February 28, 2017, the APA’s Lauren Nalbandian wrote
American in regard to its pilots. Increased reactions were being reported by pilots:
majority of reports are from pilots that have no history of allergies or other health
issues and many claim that the problems started when they got their new uniform
…. Most of us have been wearing uniforms for many years and have never before
had any of the issues that are currently being experienced. We obviously have an
issue, something that isn’t showing up in testing, and it’s making pilots sick, some
claiming they are too sick to work.
(AA8664)
317. Nalbandian also pointed out a significant matter—exposure to the uniforms was
having a cumulative effect, explaining that this was why more and more pilots were reporting
reactions. This email was forwarded to Byrnes and Stone Kimball, the chief pilot, who, in turn
forwarded it to Fernandez, Adler and Boda.
318. The response of American’s management was dismissive. Fernandez emailed
Byrnes and Schillinger: “Here we go!” (AA2372) Sirakova claimed that Nalbandian had
- 72 -
exaggerated in the past (she was the one who had reported the results of the APA survey in 2015
after the first wear test) and “I am not so sure how many pilots are actually complaining of uniform
related reactions.” (AA8674) Given the history with Nalbandian and the APA, American had no
reason to question the APA’s reporting. The APA, via Nalbandian, had reported the problems
arising out of the first wear test, had identified problems with the second wear test and pre-rollout
reactions, and had requested that the rollout be stopped. For American’s management to disregard
the APA’s recommendations at this point, when American knew from its internal inquiries that a
significant percentage of its employees were reacting to the uniforms, demonstrates conduct that
shocks the conscience.
319. On or about March 21, 2017, Romantic, responded to a query from American
communication manager Ryan Panitz about how they were to answer those who were proximity
reactors. (AA547) Romantic provided American’s standard party line:
There is no simple solution at this time. While there is no scientific evidence that
this could occur, we have heard from team members that it is a concern. Please
encourage employees to work through the formal IOD filing process so that we can
continue to understand and diagnose the issue.
320. Romantic’s email went to Panitz and Surdek (she replaced Adler as Vice President
of Flight Service, reporting to Philipovitch, when Adler was “promoted” to Senior Vice President
Product Delivery and Service on January 9, 2017).
321. Romantic’s email was false. Romantic had no basis to claim that “there is no
scientific evidence that this could occur.” To the contrary, there was on the ground evidence that
proximity reactions were taking place.
322. Romantic’s response reflected what American’s response has been from the
beginning. Although employees have been reporting proximity reactions since before the rollout,
- 73 -
American has done little to investigate. American documents produced to date show that it has
never done anything to “understand and diagnose” the issue, because American has not sent
doctors out to examine these people and shelved the one doctor that might have been able to
provide at least some answers.
323. Moreover, recommending that employees go through the IOD process was cynical
at best, because American management knew this to be a dead end, since as of that point in time
and to this date, American has not granted a single IOD for uniform reactions.
324. Shortly thereafter, on March 23, 2017, another desperate employee wrote to
American management, that her “[t]hyroid levels were sky high,” she did not have asthma, was
not allergic to wool, but that being around the Twin Hill uniforms causes her to have an “asthma
type” attack (something that was repeatedly told to American from the first wear test on).
(AA11415) She pleaded when will the uniforms be removed as “[t]he Twin Hill uniforms have
done harm to over 5000 of MY family members …. What are you doing to protect me from the
exposure via my coworkers? Sharing a jumpseat? Sitting in the cockpit for lav breaks? What are
you doing??? Please – come FLY with me so I can demonstrate fully, how this can be negatively
perceived by our passengers.” (AA11416)
325. American management’s tone deaf response to yet another desperate plea from one
of its suffering employees was to tell her that the Aramark alternative uniforms were off the rack
and safe. (AA11415) Of course, this ignored her plea—as she—like thousands of others were
proximity reactors who needed the Twin Hill uniforms removed from the workplace.
326. Five days later, on March 28, 2017, the APA’s Nalbandian reiterated the same
points she had made earlier to American. Pilots were showing “a trend of cumulative exposure
problems,” no one could recall ever having uniform problems like this before, and several new
- 74 -
hires were experiencing problems and did not have old uniforms to use as alternatives. (AA8961)
327. On March 31, 2017, the APFA provided to American a list of its members who had
reported reactions and asked that American prioritize new uniforms for those employees. Just that
list alone contained about 2,000 employees. (AA8966)
328. If there were any doubt about how many persons were reacting, the response to
ordering the Aramark alternative uniform put that to rest. In a draft of a report that Isom was to
give the American Board of Directors on or about April 11, 2017, it was stated that already 7,000
employees had placed orders for the Aramark uniforms. (AA6135)
329. Notably, the right to order replacement uniforms was not unfettered. To obtain a
replacement uniform, the employee had to certify that he or she had a “reaction” or did not feel
comfortable wearing the current uniforms. In short, in a telling slip, American admitted that its
employees were having “reactions” to the uniforms.
330. While the flight attendants who certified that they were experiencing reactions from
the Twin Hill uniforms could order replacement uniforms from Aramark, pilots who certified that
they were experiencing problems with the Twin Hill uniforms could order replacement uniforms
from Murphy & Hartelius (“M&H”), a high-end uniform manufacturer, at American’s expense.
The M&H order form stated: “Team members: Please note that this order serves as your
acknowledgement that you have experienced issues with the new uniforms.” (AA11431) Yet, even
though the employees had to certify that they were reactors, American to this date has not publicly
admitted that the uniforms were and are causing reactions and has not granted one IOD arising out
of reactions to the uniforms.
331. Meanwhile, by May 2017, American pilots were undoubtedly experiencing major
problems. On May 17, 2017, the APA’s Nalbandian informed American that “I’m receiving more
- 75 -
and more reports daily of pilots unable to wear the current uniform due to health reasons.”
(AA6560 (emphasis added)) Nalbandian noted:
We still believe that all pilots should be provided with a new M&H uniform for
safety reasons. Replacing only a few uniforms doesn’t solve the problem of a pilot
reacting to the other pilot(s) in the cockpit wearing the uniform. The only way to
remedy this is to replace all of the uniforms due to the close proximity and confined
quarters in which we work.
(AA6560)
332. Nalbandian’s concerns were prophetic. American pilots, such as the Plaintiff pilots
in this action, who are wearing alternative uniforms continue to react when forced to work around
those wearing the Twin Hill uniforms.
333. American management knew that there were serious problems for those who were
proximity reactors. Tana Edwards, in a June 13, 2017 email to Romantic and Wendy Stockton,
American’s Director of Flight Service Eastern Region, asked if they should offer flight attendants
leave if they cannot work with others in the Twin Hill uniforms. (AA9501) But even though
NIOSH in its recent report recommended that American grant leave with full pay and benefits for
reactors, American has done no such thing.
334. On June 22, 2017, American announced in a letter to its employees that it was
terminating its presumably long-term relationship with Twin Hill as of 2020. The letter was signed
by American Airlines’ Senior Vice Presidents Kerry Philipovitch, David Seymour, and Kurt
Stache (evidencing the removal of the Troika of Fernandez, Adler and Boda from the process). In
the letter, American admitted its knowledge of the current serious situation presented by the Twin
Hill uniforms: “It is clear we need a long-term solution because the current approach simply does
not work.” (AA9515)
335. The key admission in this letter is, of course, that the current approach was not
- 76 -
working. As noted above, that current approach was to permit employees who were reacting to
change to a non-Twin Hill uniform. Thus, in this letter American admitted by its statements and
its conduct that it knew that the Twin Hill uniforms had and would continue to cause harm to
Plaintiffs and the Class.
336. If there were, as American and Twin Hill claim, no harm caused by the Twin Hill
uniforms and if all of the testing conducted on the uniforms demonstrated that they were safe, then
there would have been no reason to reverse course—after only nine months—when this uniform
change had been planned over three years—the first of its kind in 30 years—and then announce
that a new uniform supplier would be sought out in three years’ time.
337. Unfortunately, even then, this is a non-solution and does not correct Defendants’
tortious conduct, since for at least another three years and likely more, as American’s internal
documents shows that it will take at least two-three years to roll out the uniforms. Given the
apparent care that American is now taking—care it should have taken in 2014—the rollout date
for the Land’s End uniforms may be more than 3 years away.
338. Thus, on June 23, 2017, Jill Surdek, in responding to another desperate plea of a
proximity reactor (the reactor got “nauseous and breathless sitting next” to co-workers wearing the
Twin Hill uniform), stated “we are not going to be moving away from the Twin Hill uniform until
we have our supplier producing the uniform in 2-3 years.” (AA9528)
339. As would be expected, American’s cross functional employees (those who work
for American’s regional carriers) who were supplied with the Twin Hill uniforms also experienced
reactions to the uniforms. But the demand for the alternative Aramark uniforms was so great, and
the inventory so limited, that American had to limit Aramark alternative uniforms to American
Airlines employees only. (AA9004)
- 77 -
340. Similarly, American’s new hires also experienced reactions to the Twin Hill
uniforms, although “[m]ost of our new hires did not have reactions to the TH uniforms during
training.” (AA9497) This of course means that at least some new hires were reacting during
training. Yet American forced and forces all new hires to purchase the Twin Hill uniforms, from
American no less (as it bought the entire Twin Hill inventory as a condition of the contract being
terminated) but does not warn them of the possible health risks they pose. In short, American is
trying to make a profit off the sale of these toxic uniforms to unsuspecting new hires.
341. As of the end of July 2017, a startling 50% of American pilots had certified in
writing that they had had “issues” with the Twin Hill uniforms in requesting the M&H uniforms.
Thus, within one year of the uniform rollout, over half of American’s pilots have certified, in
writing, that they are experiencing “issues” with the new uniforms. American knows all of these
pilots by name.
342. Not surprisingly, American appears to have a list of those who have reported
reactions to it. American reached out to at least some employees who it knew were reacting to the
uniforms in December 2017. On December 6, 2017, an American Senior Analyst wrote to “Select
Flight Attendants”: “We are specifically reaching out to you based on your reaction to the current
uniforms.” The letter went on to offer them “the opportunity to wear test garments from a new
vendor,” provided, among other things, they agree to wear the test garments for six months.
343. The number of adverse reactions reported has steadily increased over time. As of
September 26, 2018, the APFA reported that it had received 4,830 uniform reaction reports from
American Airlines flight attendants out of the approximately 18,000 flight attendants represented
by the APFA. Of the approximately 3,000 flight attendants represented by the AFA, approximately
700 have filed adverse reaction reports.
- 78 -
Harvard School of Public Health Study
344. A recently published peer-review study authored by researchers from the Harvard
School of Public Health reports the results of an epidemiological study that they conducted on the
Twin Hill/Alaska Airlines uniform event. See Eileen McNeely, Steven J. Staffa, Irina
Mordukhovich & Brent Coull, Symptoms related to new flight attendant uniforms, BMC Public
Health (2017) 17:972 (“Harvard Report”).
345. The Harvard Report is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, but the key finding is simple.
The Harvard scientists found a relationship between the introduction of the Twin Hill uniforms
and the wave of adverse reactions that swept across Alaska Airlines: “We found that the
introduction of the new flight attendant uniforms was associated with quantifiable health effects.
More specifically, we found the new uniform introduction to be related to skin rashes and
itchiness, as well as respiratory and allergic symptoms.” Id. at 7 (emphasis added).
346. In particular, with regard to Defendants’ contention that the complaints of flight
attendants and pilots regarding the Twin Hill uniforms are speculative, just like Twin Hill
contended with regard to the Alaska Airlines event, the study notes—unfortunately too late to help
Alaska employees harmed by the Twin Hill uniforms, “These results raise the seriousness of the
flight attendant complaints about potential harms and the need for further investigation.” Id.
American Intentionally Harmed and Continues

to Harm Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactor Class
347. By the time American rolled out the Twin Hill uniforms in September 2016,
American knew that the uniforms caused reactions in employees who were exposed to the
uniforms, regardless of whether that specific employee was wearing a Twin Hill uniform. In other
words, American knew that the Twin Hill uniforms caused proximity reactions. And as of this date
American knows, because it has polled its base managers, that thousands of its employees are
- 79 -
proximity reactors who continue to be injured from exposure to the Twin Hill uniforms.
348. While as set forth below, each Plaintiff who is a proximity reactor informed
American of his or her specific proximity reaction and American nonetheless forced each Plaintiff
to continue to work around the Twin Hill uniforms, American’s conduct with respect to Plaintiff
Joe Catan is a prime example of how it knowingly continues to harm employees that it knows by
name are proximity reactors. In fact, the conduct reflects an intent to force these employees to quit
or be fired.
349. Plaintiff Captain Joe Catan is a Marine Corps veteran with two tours of duty in Iraq
and 26 years with American. Captain Catan had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill
uniform. As a result, in December 2016, he stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began
wearing an alternate uniform. But Captain Catan continued to experience adverse reactions when
he worked around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, including headaches, runny nose,
congestion and hoarseness.
350. While not debilitating or incapacitating, Captain Catan experiences adverse
reactions when he is forced to work with someone who is wearing the Twin Hill uniforms.
351. Captain Catan has repeatedly told American that he is a proximity reactor. As early
as February 2017 and various times thereafter, including in written emails dated February 7, 2017,
February 17, 2017, and July 6, 2017, Captain Catan reported to American management that he and
many others were experiencing proximity reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms. Captain Catan has
written about the proximity reactions that he, and other American employees are experiencing, to
Doug Parker (American’s CEO), Robert Isom (American’s President), Scott Kirby (American’s
former President), Elise Eberwein (American’s VP Customer Experience), and Kimball Stone,
(American’s VP Flight). In addition, on or about May 17, 2017 at a town hall meeting at American
- 80 -
Airlines LaGuardia airport operations, Captain Catan made a presentation to Isom regarding these
health concerns for himself and hundreds, if not thousands, of fellow crewmembers. Captain Catan
specifically told Isom the cockpit was not safe because of the proximity reactions.4 Isom ignored
his question about what American was going to do for proximity reactors and claimed that
American had solved the problem by allowing people to switch to alternative non-Twin Hill
uniforms. Notwithstanding this clear warning that the Twin Hill uniforms were putting both
American’s employees and passengers at risk, American did not take—and has still yet to take—
any steps to address the proximity reactor problem.
352. At no time did American ever make sure that Captain Catan was not assigned
employees to his flights so that he would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms.
American knew that Captain Catan was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity
reactions because of its insistence that he, and thousands of others that it knows by name, continue
to work around these toxic uniforms, and took no steps to ameliorate his suffering and as discussed
below has actually tried to harm Captain Catan further by expressly ordering him to work with
pilots who are wearing the Twin Hill garments. Each time that American assigned Captain Catan
to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that he would suffer a
proximity reaction was and is a separate, intentional tort by American.
353. In fact, American has repeatedly retaliated against, and taken unwarranted
employment actions against Captain Catan, due to Captain Catan’s advocacy on behalf of his
fellow American employees and proximity reactors.
4
Specifically, Captain Catan told Isom: “I do not have a safe environment in the cockpit.” Lewis
Lazare, An American Airlines pilot drops bombshell about Twin Hill uniforms, CHICAGO BUSINESS
JOURNAL (May 16, 2017), available at
https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2017/05/16/an-american-airlines-pilot-drops-
bombshell-about.html.
- 81 -
354. On several occasions Captain Catan was approached by management and
essentially told to shut up. But he did not, and on or about August 19, 2017, after his usual
crewmember briefing, and in between a short flight from JFK to Charlotte and back, a flight
attendant touched Captain Catan with her Twin Hill uniform. Within minutes, Captain Catan began
to have an asthma like reaction (one of his symptoms even though he has never had asthma before
the introduction of the Twin Hill uniforms).
355. Captain Catan delayed his departure for 20 minutes until the reaction began to
subside and then proceeded to JFK uneventfully. But he had had enough, and thus in the interest
of safety and because the flight manual compels him to report any safety hazards, Captain Catan
filed a safety report with the FAA and American—it is called an ASAP.
356. American took no action on the ASAP, which effectively terminated any inquiry.
Instead, American immediately grounded Captain Catan, sent him a disciplinary notice and
thereafter conducted a hearing, because it claimed he was asthmatic (when only chronic asthma is
a basis for grounding). During the hearing it was made clear that Captain Catan was only reacting
to being around the Twin Hill uniforms and that he never had asthma before.
357. Inexplicably, American grounded Captain Catan for six months under the absurd
pretext that it needed to locate a doctor to examine him, despite repeated inquiries about why there
was such a long delay to find a doctor, as Captain Catan had been deemed fit to fly by an AME
doctor in July 2017—just over one month before his six month grounding. American’s
unwarranted and punitive grounding of Captain Catan (it is clear that it was retaliating against him
because he filed an ASAP) caused him to lose substantial compensation (in excess of $100,000)
that he would otherwise have earned if he had not been grounded.
- 82 -
358. Once American finally scheduled the examination, Captain Catan was promptly
found to have no asthma, fit to fly, and was re-instated to fly on or about February 6, 2018.
359. Yet, American grounded Captain Catan approximately a month later in March
2018, on the pretext that he had bullied a fellow crew member into wearing non-Twin Hill
garments in Captain Catan’s cockpit. The reality was that Captain Catan (1) gave his First Officer,
a new hire who had confided to him that he was a Twin Hill reactor, his own shirt and tie so that
he would not react during the flight and (2) at the request of flight attendants who were proximity
reactors, tried to persuade another flight attendant to switch out of the Twin Hill uniform for the
benefit of his co-workers. American held yet another disciplinary hearing on these bogus charges
and once again, Captain Catan was exonerated and returned to flying.
360. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from American’s treatment of
Captain Catan is that American grounded Captain Catan to send a message to other pilots that they
would face repercussions if they complained about the uniforms.
361. Unfortunately, American’s harassment of Captain Catan has not abated. In
September 2018, Captain Catan’s First Officer, who had ordered the replacement M&H uniform
(thus certifying that he had health issues with the Twin Hill uniforms) but had not yet received it,
offered to purchase an alternative uniform when they flew together and in the meantime agreed to
wear off the rack clothing for which Captain Catan shared the costs. In fact, Captain Catan stated
he would pay all the costs of the alternative uniform.
362. Shortly thereafter, the Chief Pilot at LaGuardia—after confirming that the First
Officer had not been coerced into this arrangement in any way—agreed this was acceptable.
However, the Director of Flight Operations, NYC (the “Director”) subsequently contacted the First
Officer and told him that he was to wear the Twin Hill uniform while working with Captain Catan,
- 83 -
notwithstanding (1) the Director’s knowledge that Captain Catan was a proximity reactor; (2) that
Isom, American’s President, has authorized anyone if they so choose to wear alternative uniforms;
(3) that the First Officer already had purchased alternative clothing; and (4) was more than willing
to wear the alternative garments and had not been coerced into doing so. Prior to this time, going
back to December 2016, Captain Catan had discussions with the Director about the Twin Hill
uniforms, and had told the Director that he was a proximity reactor.
363. The Director also contacted Captain Catan and told him the First Officer would be
wearing a Twin Hill uniform and that Captain Catan should call in sick if necessary. Of course,
American knows full well that it is firing reactors who report in sick too many times.
364. Moreover, Captain Catan refused to call in sick, because he was not sick. The
Director refused to accommodate Captain Catan’s proximity reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms
in any way. Captain Catan told him that he needed to be away from the Twin Hill uniforms. The
Director told Captain Catan that in the future he should not contact First Officers about what
uniform they would be wearing before an upcoming trip. The Director and thus American still
insist that Captain Catan continue to work with others wearing the Twin Hill uniforms knowing
full well that Captain Catan will experience proximity reactions and suffer.
365. Each time that American assigned Captain Catan to work with others who were
wearing the Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that he would suffer a proximity reaction was a
separate, intentional tort by American.
366. In the meantime, Captain Catan has continued to receive praise for his service from
his fellow crew members and passengers, including four Above & Beyond awards (kudos) from
passengers and crew as recently as August and September 2018.
- 84 -
367. Plaintiff Zurbriggen had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform.
As a result, on or about December 2016, he stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began
wearing an alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Zurbriggen continued to experience adverse reactions
when he worked around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this
problem. Plaintiff Zurbriggen submitted reaction reports to APFA (for reporting to American) on
May 15, 2017, June 29, 2017, and August 23, 2017, concerning his proximity reactions. Plaintiff
Zurbriggen on or about February/March 2017 showed an American Senior Flight Service Manager
his arms and neck which at the time were covered in rashes and welts. He went on to show his
reactions to his Base Manager, Regional Director, and Operational Manager. Plaintiff Zurbriggen
had also previous interactions with his Regional Director and Operational Manager where they
noticed Plaintiff Zurbriggen wearing his own alternate uniform, and acknowledged many flight
attendants were approaching them regarding their reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms. On or about
August 9, 2017, Plaintiff Zurbriggen filed a Notice of Dispute with American concerning his
continued proximity reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms. At no time did American ever reassign
Plaintiff Zurbriggen so that he would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American
knew that Plaintiff Zurbriggen was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions,
and instead of taking steps to ameliorate his suffering knowingly continued to cause him bodily
harm. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Zurbriggen to work with others who were
wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that he would suffer a proximity reaction was a
368. Plaintiff Dena Catan had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform
just by wearing it at home, as she was on medical leave due to a broken ankle at the time she
received her Twin Hill uniforms. And Plaintiff Dena Catan experienced and experiences adverse
- 85 -
reactions when she works around others who wear the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American
of her on going proximity reactions. On or about October 2016, Plaintiff Dena Catan received her
Twin Hill uniforms, tried them on and then hung them up in her living room. For the next two
weeks she suffered from a cascade of health issues, all of which stopped when the uniforms were
removed to the garage. Plaintiff Dena Catan wore an alternate uniform when she returned to work
on or about March 2017. She has never worn the Twin Hill uniforms to work. On or about August
3, 2017, Plaintiff Dena Catan filed a Notice of Dispute with American concerning her continued
proximity reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff
Dena Catan so that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew
that Plaintiff Dena Catan was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and
instead of taking steps to ameliorate her suffering knowingly continued to cause her bodily harm.
Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Dena Catan to work with others who were wearing
Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate,
intentional tort by American.
369. Plaintiff Haley Johnson had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform.
As a result, in mid-January 2017, she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began wearing
an alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Haley Johnson continued to experience adverse reactions when
she worked around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this
problem. Plaintiff Haley Johnson submitted reaction reports to APFA (for reporting to American)
on June 10, 2017, July 2, 2017, August 17, 2017, September 26, 2017, and January 1, 2018. In
addition, she reported problems directly to American. On September 1, 2017, Plaintiff Haley
Johnson filed a Notice of Dispute with American concerning her continued proximity reactions to
the Twin Hill uniforms. And on February 27, 2018, Plaintiff Haley Johnson told her flight service
- 86 -
manager that she experienced proximity reactions while working around other flight attendants,
including having hives for 13 straight days. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Haley
Johnson so that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that
Plaintiff Haley Johnson was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and
Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Haley Johnson to work with others who were wearing
Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate,
intentional tort by American.
370. Plaintiff Chester had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, in October 2016, she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began wearing an alternate
uniform. But Plaintiff Chester continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around
others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. Plaintiff Chester
submitted an Injury on Duty report to American in November 2016. And she had direct
conversations with her base manager and her regional manager in November and December 2016
in which she informed both of them that she was having proximity reactions. Plaintiff Chester
also emailed her manager in July 2018 that she was unable to fly on international flights due to her
proximity reactions. She also sent her manager a doctor’s note indicating that she was suffering
respiratory issues allegedly caused by the uniforms and recommending that she not fly
international flights. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Chester so that she would not
have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Chester was suffering,
and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate her
suffering knowingly continued to cause her bodily harm. Each time that American assigned
- 87 -
Plaintiff Chester to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that
she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort by American.
371. Plaintiff Bell had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. But
Plaintiff Bell continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around others who wore
the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or about March 2017, Plaintiff
Bell stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform because of reactions to them and began wearing an
alternate uniform. Plaintiff Bell informed her manager regarding her reactions to the Twin Hill
uniform and her desire to switch to an alternate (her old uniform). While she was permitted to wear
her old uniform, her manager informed her that they were not filing Injury on Duty reports. Later,
on or about May 2017, her Manager filed an Injury on Duty report for Plaintiff Bell regarding her
reactions to the uniforms, when she was out of the Twin Hill uniforms for about two months by
that point. Nonetheless, that Injury on Duty report was denied. At no time did American ever
reassign Plaintiff Bell so that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American
knew that Plaintiff Bell was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and
Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Bell to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill
uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort
by American.
372. Plaintiff Crumrine had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As
a result, on or about May 2017, he stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began wearing an
alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Crumrine continued to experience adverse reactions when he
worked around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem.
He had filed an Injury on Duty report regarding adverse reactions to the uniforms on June 5, 2017.
- 88 -
Plaintiff Crumrine informed a Chief Pilot about possible reactions to the uniforms in regards to
the IOD he had filed. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Crumrine so that he would
not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Crumrine was
suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps to
ameliorate his suffering knowingly continued to cause him bodily harm. Each time that American
assigned Plaintiff Crumrine to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while
knowing that he would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort by American.
373. Plaintiff Preston had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, on or about December 5, 2016, she informed her supervisor that she would stop wearing
them because of her experience. But Plaintiff Preston continued to experience adverse reactions
when she worked around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this
problem. Plaintiff Preston filed an Injury on Duty report to American sometime on or about
December 2016, concerning her reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniforms. Nonetheless,
despite not wearing the Twin Hill uniform, Plaintiff Preston requested leave under the Family and
Medical Leave Act on three separate occasions from 2016 to 2018 because of her reactions to the
uniforms. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Preston so that she would not have to
work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Preston was suffering, and
would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate her
Plaintiff Preston to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that
374. Plaintiff Onody had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, when she returned to work from an unrelated surgery sometime on or about July 2017, she
- 89 -
returned wearing an alternative uniform. But Plaintiff Onody continued to experience adverse
reactions when she worked around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed
American of this problem. Plaintiff Onody reported her uniform reactions to the APFA on
numerous occasions thereafter (for reporting to American), including a Uniform Reactions Report
on or about August 17, 2017. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Onody so that she
would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Onody was
ameliorate her suffering knowingly continued to cause her bodily harm. Each time that American
assigned Plaintiff Onody to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while
knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort by American.
375. Plaintiff Julie Burke had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform.
But Plaintiff Julie Burke continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around others
who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or about October
2016, Plaintiff Julie Burke stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform because of reactions to them
and began wearing an alternate uniform. On or about July 10, 2017, Plaintiff Julie Burke emailed
Jill Surdek, a Vice President at American, that she was still experiencing reactions to the Twin Hill
uniforms despite being out of them since October 2016. On or about September 27, 2017, at a
Purser Seminar in Chicago, Plaintiff Julie Burke informed several Base Managers that she could
not be near the Twin Hill uniforms without getting a reaction. On or about May 22, 2018, Plaintiff
Julie Burke emailed a Director of Flight Services, Senior Base Manager, and Base Operations
Manager regarding a proximity reaction she experienced while working near a colleague wearing
Twin Hill, and followed up these managers via email and phone again in July to inquire if the
situation had been addressed. On or about July 19, 2018, Plaintiff Julie Burke called her manager
- 90 -
to discuss a confrontation with a colleague regarding her wearing an alternative uniform after
informing this colleague they she would like to keep an arm’s distance away. During her
conversation with her manager regarding this incident, her manager told Plaintiff Julie Burke not
to ask other employees to stay an arm’s distance away, and she should tell her colleagues that her
“body is inadequate,” and that it was her fault she was having issues being in proximity to the
uniform. Her manager informed her that she would be terminated if she could not perform all her
duties in close proximity with other Flight Attendants wearing Twin Hill. At no time did American
ever reassign Plaintiff Julie Burke so that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill
uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Julie Burke was suffering, and would continue to suffer,
proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate her suffering knowingly continued
to cause her bodily harm. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Julie Burke to work with
others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity
reaction was a separate, intentional tort by American.
376. Plaintiff Behnke never wore the Twin Hill uniforms to work. Nonetheless, Plaintiff
Behnke experienced adverse reactions when she worked around others who wore the Twin Hill
uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or about March 1, 2017, Plaintiff Behnke
returned from leave wearing an alternative uniform she purchased off the rack. She called
American’s uniform reaction hotline after experiencing a proximity reaction, and told them that
she was reacting despite wearing an alternative uniform. On or about July 2017, a base manager
commented verbally that Plaintiff Behnke was wearing a non-Twin Hill scarf and inquired if she
would wear the Twin Hill scarf. Plaintiff Behnke replied she would prefer to be able to breathe.
At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Behnke so that she would not have to work around
the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Behnke was suffering, and would continue
- 91 -
to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate her suffering knowingly
continued to cause her bodily harm. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Behnke to work
with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity
377. Plaintiff Edward Burke had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform.
On or about January 2017, Plaintiff Edward Burke filed an Injury on Duty report regarding
reactions to wearing the uniforms. Thereafter, Plaintiff Edward Burke informed his Office
Manager that he would revert to wearing his old blue uniform because of his reactions to the
uniforms. From his various communications with management American knew that Plaintiff
Edward Burke was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of
taking steps to ameliorate his suffering knowingly continued to cause him bodily harm. At no time
did American ever reassign Plaintiff Edward Burke so that he would not have to work around the
Twin Hill uniforms. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Edward Burke to work with others
who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that he would suffer a proximity reaction
was a separate, intentional tort by American.
378. Plaintiff Hamdan had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, on or about September 2016, she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began wearing
an alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Hamdan continued to experience adverse reactions when she
On September 30, 2016, Plaintiff Hamdan informed her supervisor that she would no longer be
wearing the uniforms because of her reactions to them. Plaintiff Hamdan on or about December
2016, filed with the APFA (for purposes of reporting to American) that she was still reacting to
the Twin Hill uniforms, despite not wearing them anymore. At no time did American ever reassign
- 92 -
Plaintiff Hamdan so that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American
knew that Plaintiff Hamdan was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and
Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Hamdan to work with others who were wearing Twin
Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional
tort by American.
379. Plaintiff Isaac had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, on or about November 2016, she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began wearing
an alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Isaac continued to experience adverse reactions when she
On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff Isaac emailed Doug Parker and Hector Adler, senior American
executives, demanding a recall of the Twin Hill uniforms. On May 17, 2017, Plaintiff Isaac again
emailed senior American executives, including Robert Isom, Suzanne Boda, Douglas Parker, and
Jull Surdek regarding the uniforms. On or about June 21, 2017, Plaintiff Isaac submitted a reaction
report to the APFA regarding her proximity reactions to the uniforms. On or about June 27, 2017,
Plaintiff Isaac emailed Jill Surdek regarding measures she was taking in attempting to avoid having
proximity reactions, including switching to glasses and cleaning the jump seats she sits in during
flights. Plaintiff Isaac also exchanged emails with Jill Surdek on July 11, 2017, regarding her
ongoing treatment of reactions to the uniforms. On or about August 1 and 28, 2017, Plaintiff Isaac
emailed the APFA specifically regarding proximity reactions suffered by her and many others. On
or about August 29, 2017, Plaintiff Isaac informed the APFA in order to correct errors when
recounting her proximity reactions to the uniforms, after she had stopped wearing the Twin Hill
uniforms. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Isaac so that she would not have to work
- 93 -
around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Isaac was suffering, and would
continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate her suffering
knowingly continued to cause her bodily harm. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Isaac
to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a
proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort by American.
380. Plaintiff Anderson had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As
a result, on or about July 2017, she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began wearing an
alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Anderson continued to experience adverse reactions when she
worked around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed Envoy and American of
this problem. On or about July 20, 2017, Plaintiff Anderson informed an Envoy Inflight service
manager that she could no longer wear the uniform, and was subsequently advised to wear an
alternate uniform. Thereafter, due to another proximity reaction, on or about September 30, 2017,
she again contacted Envoy’s Inflight service office and subsequently contacted an Inflight service
manager regarding her reactions. On or about April 27, 2018, Plaintiff Anderson again contacted
an Inflight service manager regarding her proximity reactions. On or about May 15, 2018, Plaintiff
Anderson emailed an American flight service manager that she had a reaction to the uniform, and
had contacted the Inflight office that morning and was not able to be at the airport due to proximity
reactions. On or about August 14, 2018, Plaintiff Anderson submitted Fitness for Duty
Certification that indicated she was not fit for duty because of her proximity reactions to the Twin
Hill uniforms. At no time did Envoy or American ever reassign Plaintiff Anderson so that she
would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. Envoy and American knew that Plaintiff
Anderson was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking
steps to ameliorate her suffering knowingly continued to cause her bodily harm. Each time that
- 94 -
Envoy and American assigned Plaintiff Anderson to work with others who were wearing Twin
Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional
tort by American.
381. Plaintiff Maginn had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, on or about September 6, 2017, he stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began
wearing an alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Maginn continued to experience adverse reactions
when he worked around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American and
PSA of this problem. On or about September 21, 2017, Plaintiff Maginn emailed PSA’s Manager
of Inflight Services regarding his reactions to the uniforms despite not wearing them anymore. On
or about September 27, 2017, Plaintiff Maginn again emailed PSA’s Manager of Inflight Services
regarding his reactions to the uniforms. On or about December 6, 2017, Plaintiff Maginn emailed
PSA’s Director of Inflight Services regarding his reactions to the uniforms. Plaintiff Maginn also
applied for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act on April 10, 2018, due to his proximity
reactions to the uniforms. American and PSA knew that Plaintiff Maginn was suffering, and would
continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate his suffering
knowingly continued to cause him bodily harm. At no time did PSA or American ever reassign
Plaintiff Maginn so that he would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. Each time that
American and PSA assigned Plaintiff Maginn to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill
uniforms while knowing that he would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort
by American.
382. Plaintiff Drake had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, sometime on or about late 2017, she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began
wearing an alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Drake continued to experience adverse reactions when
- 95 -
she worked around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this
problem. Plaintiff Drake spoke with her supervisor numerous times over the course of eight to nine
months since she has been out of the Twin Hill uniforms regarding her proximity reactions. As
recently as September 2018, she showed her supervisor reactions on her neck. At no time did
American ever reassign Plaintiff Drake so that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill
uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Drake was suffering, and would continue to suffer,
to cause her bodily harm. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Drake to work with others
who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction
383. Plaintiff Boxtel had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. But
Plaintiff Boxtel continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around others who
wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or about December 8,
2016, Plaintiff Boxtel informed her supervisor that she was going to not wear the Twin Hill
uniforms because of her reactions to them. Then, on or about January 5, 2017, she informed her
supervisor by phone that she wanted to file an Injury on Duty report with American due to reactions
she had suffered on or about January 3, 2017, that was attributable to the uniforms, despite her not
wearing the Twin Hill uniforms anymore. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Boxtel
so that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff
Boxtel was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps
to ameliorate her suffering knowingly continued to cause her bodily harm. Each time that
American assigned Plaintiff Boxtel to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms
- 96 -
while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort by
American.
384. Plaintiff Nyakas had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. But
Plaintiff Nyakas continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around others who
wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or about April 2017,
Plaintiff Nyakas stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform because of reactions to them and began
wearing an alternate uniform. On or about December 2017, Plaintiff Nyakas’s Flight Service
Manager noted that Plaintiff Nyakas was wearing an alternate uniform and expressed concern that
she was unable to wear the Twin Hill uniform because of her reaction. Thereafter, on or about
January 2018, Plaintiff Nyakas notified the Purser Manager of the adverse reactions she was still
experiencing because of the uniforms and was advised not to work her assigned trip and was
subsequently sent to American’s medical unit. Shortly thereafter, she received a voicemail from
her Flight Service Manager who expressed regret that she was still experiencing reactions to the
uniforms. She had been out of the uniforms for over a year at this point. At no time did American
ever reassign Plaintiff Nyakas so that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms.
American knew that Plaintiff Nyakas was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity
reactions, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate her suffering knowingly continued to cause her
bodily harm. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Nyakas to work with others who were
wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a
385. Plaintiff Endicott had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, sometime on or about April 2017, she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began
wearing an alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Endicott continued to experience adverse reactions
- 97 -
when she worked around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this
problem. Thereafter, she filed a reaction report with the APFA (for reporting to American),
regarding her reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms. She also filed an Injury on Duty Report on or
about July 2017, regarding her reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms. At no time did American ever
reassign Plaintiff Endicott so that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms.
American knew that Plaintiff Endicott was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity
reactions, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate her suffering knowingly continued to cause her
bodily harm. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Endicott to work with others who were
wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a
386. Plaintiff Patterson had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. But
Plaintiff Patterson continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around others who
wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or about October 2016,
she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform because of reactions to them and began wearing an
alternate uniform. Plaintiff Patterson notified her union on October 13, 2016 and filed an Injury
on Duty report with American on October 15, 2016. Thereafter, despite being out of the uniform,
Plaintiff Patterson submitted reaction reports to APFA (for reporting to American) on January 17,
2017, January 23, 2017, and February 8, 2017. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff
Patterson so that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that
Plaintiff Patterson was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of
taking steps to ameliorate her suffering knowingly continued to cause her bodily harm. Each time
that American assigned Plaintiff Patterson to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill
- 98 -
uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort
by American.
387. Plaintiff Gordon had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, she never had occasion to wear the Twin Hill uniforms to work and also wore an alternate
uniform. But Plaintiff Gordon continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around
others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. With the
exception of the Twin Hill scarf, on or about February 2017, Plaintiff Gordon stopped wearing the
Twin Hill uniform and began wearing an alternate uniform. She eventually stopped wearing the
scarf on or about April 2017. Nonetheless, Plaintiff Gordon informed her supervisor at American
on or about January 2017 that she would not be wearing the uniform, and also reported the same
to the APFA by submitting a reaction report (for reporting to American). Then on or about April
2017, Plaintiff Gordon informed her supervisor and an APFA union board member that she was
still having reactions to the uniforms despite being out of them completely. On or about May 2017,
Plaintiff Gordon again informed her supervisor that she was continuing to have proximity reactions
to the Twin Hill uniforms. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Gordon so that she
would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Gordon was
assigned Plaintiff Gordon to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while
knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort by American.
388. Plaintiff Joy had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, she never had occasion to wear the Twin Hill uniforms to work and also wore an alternate
uniform. But Plaintiff Joy continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around
- 99 -
others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or about
October 3, 2016, Plaintiff Joy was contacted by an American flight service manager, for purposes
of submitting an Injury on Duty report regarding her proximity reactions. On or about November
6, 2017, Plaintiff Joy filed another Injury on Duty report regarding her proximity reactions. On
December 6, 2017, via email, American reached out to Plaintiff Joy to become a wear tester for
the new uniform based on her reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms. In February 2017, Plaintiff Joy
took approximately two weeks of unpaid voluntary leave to recuperate, in part, with her continued
proximity reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms. During this period, she spoke with an American
flight service manager about her continued proximity reactions to the Twin Hill uniform. On or
about March 22, 2017, Plaintiff Joy filed another Injury on Duty report regarding her proximity
reactions. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Joy so that she would not have to work
around the Twin Hill uniforms. Moreover, on numerous occasions, Plaintiff Joy emailed a flight
service manager, informing them of her proximity reactions, including emails sent on or about
October 22, 2016, November 6, 2016, and January 24, 2017. American knew that Plaintiff Joy was
assigned Plaintiff Joy to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing
that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort by American.
389. Plaintiff Runkle had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. But
Plaintiff Runkle continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around others who
wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or about February 27,
2017, Plaintiff Runkle called American’s uniform hotline to switch from the Twin Hill uniforms
because of her reactions. At some point after switching to an alternate uniform, she notified her
- 100 -
Supervisor that she was still reacting and she was continuing to experience reactions to the
uniforms. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Runkle so that she would not have to
work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Runkle was suffering, and
would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate her
Plaintiff Runkle to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that
390. Plaintiff Vera had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, on or about March 9, 2017, she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began wearing
an alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Vera continued to experience adverse reactions when she
On or about March 9, 2017, she called American’s uniform hotline and was informed that she did
not need to wear the Twin Hill uniform and was advised to purchase her own alternative uniform
pieces. On or about May 31, 2017, Plaintiff Vera spoke with an American Vice President and
spoke about the difficulties caused by the uniforms, and specifically represented that despite not
wearing the Twin Hill uniforms, she was experiencing reactions when exposed to individuals who
still were wearing the Twin Hill uniforms. On or about June 2017, Plaintiff Vera spoke with her
Flight Service Manager about reactions to the uniforms where she was advised to file an Injury on
Duty report, but stated she was reluctant to do so because she heard they were all being denied.
On or about June 17, 2017, Plaintiff Vera met with a Flight Service Manager regarding a proximity
reaction she had experienced on a trip, and had a subsequent conversation with another Flight
Service Manager where she was advised to file an Injury on Duty report, which she did on this
instance because of the increasing severity of her reactions. Her Injury on Duty was denied. On or
- 101 -
about June 23, 2017, Plaintiff Vera had a meeting with American representatives, including her
Flight Service Manager, regarding her ongoing proximity reactions to the uniforms. At that
meeting, Plaintiff Vera provided summary materials regarding her reactions and other paperwork
provided to her supervisors, where it was advised she seek a position for temporary re-assignment
for a position where she would be able to work from home. On or about July 2017, Plaintiff Vera
advised her Flight Service Manager that she had told her insurer regarding multiple proximity
reactions. On or about January 2018, Plaintiff Vera advised her Flight Service Manager that it be
notated that she was having reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms so that it would not be called into
question why she was not wearing the Twin Hill uniform. This was done prior to transferring to
another base of operations. On or about July 13, 2018, Plaintiff Vera, via phone, informed
American crew tracking that she would need to change positions on an aircraft because she was
experiencing reactions sitting in close proximity to another flight attendant wearing Twin Hill. On
or about July 2018, Plaintiff Vera had a telephone communication with Sedgwick, the entity
handling Injury on Duty reports for American, regarding the previous denial of the Injury on Duty
report she filed. During that call, she described the proximity reaction she experienced on or about
July 13, 2018. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Vera so that she would not have to
work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Vera was suffering, and would
continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate her suffering
knowingly continued to cause her bodily harm. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Vera
to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a
proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort by American.
391. Plaintiff Kresko had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, in April 25, 2018, she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began wearing an
- 102 -
alternate uniform. But Plaintiff Kresko continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked
around others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or
about May 17, 2018, Plaintiff Kresko contacted American’s uniform team regarding reactions that
she was still experiencing reactions despite not wearing the Twin Hill uniforms. That same day
she spoke with the Flight Office regarding her uniform reactions. On May 23, 2018, Plaintiff
Kresko spoke with the Flight Office explaining her proximity reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms
and inquired if the office had an alternate non-Twin Hill tie available. Despite being told just
moments prior she was reacting to the uniforms, the Flight Office representative handed her a Twin
Hill tie. On or about June 11, 2018, Plaintiff Krekso called the Flight Office again seeking
reimbursement for new pants she had bought due to proximity reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms,
and was simply told that no reimbursement would be provided. On or about July 6, 2018, Plaintiff
Kresko filed an Injury on Duty report regarding my reactions to the uniforms which was
subsequently denied on July 12, 2018. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Kresko so
that she would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff
Kresko was suffering, and instead of taking steps to ameliorate her suffering knowingly continued
to cause her bodily harm. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Kresko to work with others
who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity reaction
392. Plaintiff Jones had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. As a
result, in October 2016, she stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform and began wearing an alternate
uniform. But Plaintiff Jones continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around
others who wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or about
December 13, 2016, Plaintiff Jones emailed among others, high level American executives,
- 103 -
including Doug Parker, Hector Adler, Robert Isom, Kerry Philipovitch, regarding the inadequacy
of offering “replacement” uniforms and demanding a recall of all Twin Hill uniforms as reactions
would otherwise continue. Plaintiff Jones had verbal discussions regarding her attendance, where
she informed American personnel, including a base manager, on or about September 12, 2017, that
she did not wear the Twin Hill uniforms because she felt that being around them was causing her
adverse reactions to worsen. On or about April 30, 2017, she also called American regarding her
anxiety with the uniforms. On or about January 29, 2018, Plaintiff Jones emailed Jill Surdek, a
Vice President at American, outlining her reactions to the uniforms across the past year and seeking
reimbursement for clothing purchased off the shelf because she is unable to wear the Twin Hill
uniforms. Plaintiff Jones submitted an application for leave under the Family and Medical Leave
Act on July 16, 2018. Plaintiff Jones submitted an Injury on Duty report to American concerning
her proximity reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms on or about November 3, 2016, March 19, 2017,
May 29, 2017, and March 18, 2018. At no time did American ever reassign Plaintiff Jones so that
she would not have to work around the Twin Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Jones
was suffering, and would continue to suffer, proximity reactions, and instead of taking steps to
assigned Plaintiff Jones to work with others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing
that she would suffer a proximity reaction was a separate, intentional tort by American.
393. Plaintiff Brasier had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. But
Plaintiff Brasier continued to experience adverse reactions when she worked around others who
wore the Twin Hill uniforms, and informed American of this problem. On or about October 2017,
Plaintiff Brasier stopped wearing the Twin Hill uniform because of her reactions to them and began
wearing an alternate uniform. Plaintiff Brasier submitted a reaction report to APFA (for reporting
- 104 -
to American) on November 6, 2017, regarding her reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms. At no time
did American ever reassign Plaintiff Brasier so that she would not have to work around the Twin
Hill uniforms. American knew that Plaintiff Brasier was suffering, and would continue to suffer,
to cause her bodily harm. Each time that American assigned Plaintiff Julie Brasier to work with
others who were wearing Twin Hill uniforms while knowing that she would suffer a proximity
394. Plaintiffs Akers, Weigel, Kelly, Bean, and Stuart, despite continuing to suffer from
proximity reactions, have not yet reported their proximity reactions to American but this pleading
and the earlier pleadings to which they were parties served and serve as such notification.
395. Plaintiffs Kimberly Johnson, McCord, Austin, and Li had no occasion to have
proximity reactions because they have been grounded since their reactions were too severe to work
and thus have not returned to work since such reactions.
396. Plaintiff Branch has yet to experience a proximity reaction, but takes precautionary
measures to minimize contact with other flight attendants.
397. Plaintiff Terry had adverse reactions while wearing the Twin Hill uniform. He filed
an Injury on Duty report on October 25, 2017, for an injury that occurred on September 28, 2017.
That Injury on Duty was denied on October 31, 2017.
398. Plaintiffs, as well as thousands of other American Airlines employees, are caught
in a nightmarish “Groundhog Day”—a never ending cycle of (a) going to work, (b) experiencing
debilitating symptoms of headaches, fatigue, respiratory problems, vertigo and rashes as a result
of working in and around persons who are wearing the new uniforms, (c) leaving work and starting
to recuperate, (d) only to repeat this again when they return to work.
- 105 -
399. And American continues to pile on. American recently announced a new attendance
policy effective October 1, 2018, lowering the amount of sick leave days that flight attendants may
take, which will significantly restrict its employees’ ability to work through the problems they are
experiencing from the Twin Hill uniforms. This appears calculated to rid the American work force
of proximity reactors and to avoid offering those employees leave with full benefits until the Twin
Hill uniforms are removed, as recommended by NIOSH and discussed below.
The January 2018 NIOSH Report
400. On January 10, 2018, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(“NIOSH”) (“NIOSH Report”) issued a report, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, apparently in response
to the complaint filed by a flight attendant as alleged above.
401. From the NIOSH report, it appears that American and Twin Hill made one-sided
presentations to NIOSH and hid from NIOSH that they were both aware that thousands of
American employees were suffering from proximity reactions. For example, NIOSH reported that
based upon what had been shared with it that, “Symptoms reported to occur while not wearing the
uniform, but in the proximity of others wearing the new uniform, were reported 47 times.” That
was a vast understatement of the number of proximity reactors of which American was aware.
402. With regard to chemical mixtures of individual chemicals that are at “subthreshold”
levels on their own, NIOSH stated: “Laboratory analyses showed measureable amounts of known
irritants and sensitizers in a subset of uniform pieces. There is evidence in the literature that
subthreshold concentrations of irritants can have an additive effect on the skin [Tur et al. 1995].
For example, if the skin is exposed to only one of these irritants, no visible changes are seen, but
if exposed to several, the skin may develop an irritant response.” (emphasis added). Thus, NIOSH
recognized the threat posed by chemical mixtures.
- 106 -
403. Furthermore, NIOSH stated that “One study noted that it is currently difficult to
detect newer textile allergens because chemicals used in textiles are not always declared [Lisi et
al 2014].” That is precisely the case here, as there is no evidence currently produced to Plaintiffs
that either American or Twin Hill sought such chemical declarations at all.
404. NIOSH also noted that formaldehyde may leach out of the uniforms:
A review article on textile formaldehyde releasing finishes stated that the amounts
of free formaldehyde in textiles has decreased drastically in recent years and are
generally low [GAO report 2010; DeGroot and Maibach 2010]. However, if cured
incorrectly (not heated to a certain temperature for specific length of time), the
finishing chemicals may not bind to the fabric fibers as they should and in certain
conditions such as sweating, high heat, and high humidity, the chemicals may leach
out [DeGroot and Maibach 2010]. Although the use of textile resins with lower
formaldehyde release has resulted in a decrease in the occurrence of formaldehyde-
associated textile allergic contact dermatitis, it is still commonly seen with highly
finished garments such as uniforms [Mobolaji-Lawal and Nedorost 2015].
405. Furthermore, as to any “dose/response” evidence (one of the primary bases for the
negative result in the Alaska Airlines trial), NIOSH noted that this is essentially meaningless: “The
concentration at which each textile chemical causes sensitization has not been established for most
chemicals, even for known dermal sensitizers.”
406. NIOSH went on to comment about the limitations of patch testing:
Skin patch testing is useful in determining whether someone has allergic contact
dermatitis; however, there are limitations. There are a limited number of allergens
that are included in skin patch test kits, including the specific series that includes
textile allergens. If an individual is not tested to the pertinent allergen, no reactions
are noted on evaluation and the individual might be erroneously considered to not
have skin allergy. Patch testing with actual pieces of the uniform may be a better
way of detecting allergic contact dermatitis. However, results may be falsely
negative since the conditions that elicit leaching of dyes and resins from the fabric,
such as sweating and friction, may not be the same when placing a piece of the
textile on the skin of the back [Mobolaji-Lawal and Nedorost 2015].
Thus, American’s requirement that reactors prove their conditions with patch testing results was
an impossible burden that merely artificially resulted in the denial of IODs. And it shelved Dr.
- 107 -
Scheman, the one person in the United States capable of developing a customized patch test for
the Twin Hill uniforms and skin problems.
407. Furthermore, with regard to the continued exposure of American’s employees to
the Twin Hill uniforms, NIOSH noted that employees were at risk for worsening conditions as
exposure continues:
Persistent postoccupational dermatitis (PPOD) can occur following allergic or

irritant contact dermatitis. PPOD begins as a clear-cut occupational contact
dermatitis. It initially gets better when removed from exposure, but with time, the
capacity for resolution is lost and persistent dermatitis develops. Predictive factors
for PPOD include duration of disease, inability to avoid causative agents, and age
[Meding et al. 2005].
...
Many skin disorders, including contact dermatitis, have been shown to have a
significant impact on quality of life [Lan et al. 2008; Fowler et al. 2006; Cvetkovski
et al. 2005; Kadyk et al. 2003]. Rapid identification and treatment of contact
dermatitis is important in preventing longer-term symptoms.
408. American failed to identify or help employees who were suffering from contact
dermatitis to seek treatment. To the contrary, American contended the uniforms were safe,
suggesting no treatment was needed.
409. Contrary to American’s repeated proclamations that the Intertek testing proved that
the Twin Hill uniforms were safe, NIOSH noted that with regard to the chemicals identified by
Intertek, “For most of the identified sensitizing agents, there is little data available in the scientific
literature or within regulatory guidelines about the amount of dermal exposure necessary to cause
sensitization or to cause a reaction in a sensitized individual. This lack of data made evaluating the
potential of sensitization for most chemicals and metals difficult.” Thus, according to NIOSH,
searching for one or even multiple chemicals as the culprits was a fools’ errand.
410. Thus, contrary to American’s repeated assertions, the literally thousands of
employees that reported reactions were not imagining their symptoms, as even at subthreshold
- 108 -
amounts as per OEKO-TEX or other “standard” setting organizations, there are no set amounts
that do or do not cause reactions. Rather, the critical question to be asked in such events is, “Are
people reacting?” The answer here is undoubtedly yes; American knew this as early as late
2014/early 2015.
411. In fact, NIOSH pointed out how Intertek’s testing report had failed to provide key
information about the “unknown” chemicals—the organic compounds that can pose such dangers.
412. As for the symptoms that employees were experiencing, NIOSH noted that they
ranged far wider than just skin issues as American had Intertek investigate. NIOSH listed
symptoms reported to the APFA:
Reported skin problems included hives, rashes, blistering, itching, discoloration,

bruising, open sores, sunburn-like rash, chemical-like rash, and swelling. Reported
respiratory problems included shortness of breath, wheezing, cough, congestion,
asthma, sore throat, sinusitis, and coughing up blood. Reported eye problems included
irritation, excessive tearing, redness, infections, styes, conjunctivitis, swelling,
bloodshot eyes, subconjunctival hemorrhage, spasms, and twitching. Reported
musculoskeletal problems included joint pain, muscle aches and spasms, fibromyalgia,
muscle fatigue, and muscle atrophy. Reported gastrointestinal problems included
stomach discomfort or irritation, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Reported
neurological problems included insomnia, headaches/migraines, cognitive issues, and
depression. Other reported symptoms or signs reported as related to the uniform
included thyroid issues, weight gain or loss, irregular menstrual cycles, sleep
disturbances, night sweats, excessive hair loss, palpitations, increased or decreased
blood pressure, swollen lymph nodes, recurring sinus and bronchial infections,
laryngitis, overall edema, fatigue and exhaustion. Skin symptoms and respiratory
symptoms were the most commonly reported symptoms.
(emphasis added).
413. NIOSH summarized what American and Twin Hill told it with respect to the wear
testing: “From late September 2015 until late October 2015, a second wear test with uniforms
designed by Twin Hill was conducted. The wear test survey focused on fit, function, construction,
and style. Health symptom questions were not included.” That description of the second wear test
is wrong. The second wear test was conducted because of the health issues raised in the first wear
- 109 -
test, and in fact revealed additional health issues. Thus, either NIOSH misunderstood what
American and Twin Hill told it, or American and Twin Hill lied to NIOSH about the second wear
test. And as alleged above this wear test was only one of several and in each instance wear testers
reported ill-health from the Twin Hill uniforms.
414. NIOSH also confirmed that American and Twin Hill were aware of adverse
reactions before the formal rollout in September 2016: “According to the employee requestors and
APFA representatives, employees began reporting symptoms they believed to be related to
touching or wearing the Twin Hill uniform shortly after uniforms were delivered beginning in May
2016. APFA began a webpage on August 11, 2016 which solicited reports of health effects
potentially related to the new uniforms.”
415. NIOSH noted that Twin Hill stated that it had 14 different mills manufacture the
fabric used for the uniforms, and while most had OEKO-TEX certificates, two did not.
416. NIOSH also noted that the fabric was then shipped from the fabric mills to 12
“separate independent factories to assemble the garments.” Three of those factories were in China,
three in Vietnam, two in Bangladesh, two in Sri Lanka, one in Indonesia, and one in Hungary.
417. Unlike American, NIOSH actually spoke to employee reactors, “Of the 50
employees, 29 reported skin irritation, 13 reported respiratory symptoms, and nine reported eye
symptoms after wearing the uniform. Some of the employees reported fatigue, flu-like body aches,
and changes in thyroid function and menstrual patterns.”
418. And unlike American’s public statements—particularly those provided to
employees after reactions were being reported, NIOSH put the lie to any claim that the Intertek
testing proved that the uniforms were free of chemicals that could cause adverse reactions.
419. In its letter to American dated January 10, 2018 (the prior excerpts were drawn
- 110 -
from the appendix to its letter), NIOSH only focused on the reported skin and respiratory
symptoms.
420. While no one chemical was found above thresholds, NIOSH again repeated that
mixtures could provide additive effect and provoke reactions.
421. Most important, however, were NIOSH’s conclusions and recommendations.
While NIOSH did not have enough data to reach conclusions about proximity exposures—likely
because American did not tell NIOSH that it estimated that as many as 3,500 employees were
proximity reactors—NIOSH nonetheless concluded: “It is possible that textile chemicals in the
uniforms or the physical irritant properties of the uniform fabrics have caused skin symptoms
among some AA employees who wore the uniforms. Irritant and allergenic compounds were
identified in some uniform garments, which could cause these skin symptoms.”
422. Most important, however, was NIOSH’s recommendation No. 6:
Remove employees with physician-diagnosed health problems related to the uniform

from exposure, and retain pay and benefits for these employees. Follow
recommendations from the diagnosing physician concerning return-to-work for
employees previously removed because of work-related exposures. In some cases of
allergic asthma and allergic contact dermatitis, employees may need to be reassigned
(with retention of pay and employment status) with work conditions in which exposure
is minimal or nonexistent.
423. NIOSH also noted that skin reactions can result in respiratory problems, citing
highly regarded experts in this area, including from Yale University.
424. Thus, based upon what it saw, even though important information was withheld
from it, NIOSH assessed the facts and concluded that employees who were diagnosed as reactors
should be granted leaves of absence with full pay until they stop reacting or as is the most likely
case, the cause of the symptoms, the uniforms, are removed from the workplace and the workplace
is cleaned.
425. As set forth in the prayer for relief below, Plaintiffs seek, in the alternative to
- 111 -
removing and replacing the Twin Hill uniforms, that the Court adopt NIOSH’s recommendation
No. 6 and that when an employee provides a doctor’s diagnosis of a health problem related to the
uniforms, at the employee’s election he or she should be awarded paid leave with full benefits.
426. The burden on American will be minimal compared to the continued suffering that
the employees have and continue to suffer. Furthermore, if as American contends the amount of
reactors is small, to comply with the NIOSH recommendation should not be great. And if the
number is large enough to make this recommendation too burdensome then the uniforms should
be removed from the workplace.
427. Over half of the pilots have already ordered alternative uniforms. Over 14,000 flight
attendants are already wearing alternative uniforms—from the Aramark alternative uniforms to
their old blue uniforms.
428. The burden on American of requiring all other employees to stop wearing the Twin
Hill uniforms, until a company-wide replacement is available, pales in comparison to the suffering
that thousands of American employees will suffer over the next 2-4 years.
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
429. Plaintiffs bring Count I through VI, as set forth below, on behalf of themselves and
as a class action, pursuant to the provisions of Rules 23(a) and(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of a class defined as:
All American Airlines current and former employees who were

exposed to Twin Hill’s uniforms on or after September 1, 2016 (the
“Uniform Class”).
Excluded from the Uniform Class are Defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who
make a timely election to be excluded from the Uniform Class; governmental entities; and the
judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate family. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
- 112 -
revise the Uniform Class definition based upon information learned through discovery.
430. Plaintiffs bring Counts I, II, and V, as set forth below, on behalf of themselves and
as a class action, pursuant to the provisions of Rules 23(a) and(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of a class defined as:
All American Airlines current and former employees who were

exposed to Twin Hill’s uniforms, reported a problem with exposure
to Twin Hill’s uniforms to American Airlines, and who reacted to
the Twin Hill uniforms after such a report (the “Proximity Reactor
Class”).
Excluded from the Proximity Reactor Class are Defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates; all
persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Proximity Reactor Class;
governmental entities; and the judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate family.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to revise the Proximity Reactor Class definition based upon information
learned through discovery.
431. Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because
all of the elements of Rule 23 (a) and (b)(2) are met here, as Plaintiffs can prove the elements of
their and the class’ claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as would be used to prove
those elements in individual actions alleging the same claim, Defendants continue to act and refuse
to discontinue actions which are harmful to the Classes as a whole and Plaintiffs seek equitable
relief against Defendants on behalf of themselves and the Classes.
432. Numerosity – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). The members of the
Classes are so numerous that individual joinder of all members of the Classes is impracticable. To
date, tens of thousands of American Airlines employees have worn, or been exposed to the unsafe
uniforms and thousands have made complaints to their respective unions and American. The
precise number of Class members and their addresses is presently unknown to Plaintiffs, but may
- 113 -
be ascertained from the books and records of Twin Hill and American Airlines as well as the AFA,
APFA and APA, as they maintain adverse reaction reports files for those who are currently
reported as reactors though it is anticipated that this number will increase over time as more people
become sensitized to the uniforms. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action
by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. mail,
electronic mail, Internet postings, and/or published notice.
433. Commonality – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(2). This
action involves common questions of law and fact, including, without limitation:
(a) Whether the uniforms supplied by Twin Hill and American to American Airlines’
employees are unsafe and dangerous;
(b) Whether and when Defendants knew that the uniforms it supplied to American
Airlines’ employees were unsafe and dangerous; and
(c) Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to equitable relief,
including but not limited to, medical monitoring, injunctive or declaratory relief.
434. Typicality – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs’ claims are
typical of the claims of the other Class members because, among other things, all Class members
are at risk for short and long-term injuries resulting from exposure to the Twin Hill uniforms.
435. Adequacy of Representation – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).
Plaintiffs are adequate Class representatives because their interests do not conflict with the
interests of the Class members they seek to represent; they have retained counsel competent and
experienced in complex and class action litigation; and Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action
vigorously. Class members’ interests will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their
counsel.
436. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
Both Twin Hill and American have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
- 114 -
Plaintiffs and the other Class members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and
declaratory relief, as described below.
VI. CLAIMS ALLEGED
COUNT I
Battery
(On behalf of all Plaintiffs individually against both Defendants,
On behalf of the Uniform Class against Twin Hill,
On behalf of the Proximity Reactor Class against American)
437. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 436 above as if fully set forth herein.
438. Defendants American and Twin Hill’s actions constitute an intentional and
malicious battery committed by them against Plaintiffs and the Class members as each set forces
in motion which has resulted in continuing unauthorized and unconsented contact with the
Plaintiffs and the Classes.
439. In this regard, both Defendants intended and did cause and continue to cause
Plaintiffs and the Classes to come in contact with a substance (the uniforms) or substances (the
chemicals in the uniforms) in a manner that was offensive, unauthorized and unconsented.
440. Defendant Twin Hill manufactured and distributed, and American distributed and
continues to distribute as well as permit its employees to wear unsafe and dangerous uniforms
which have and continue to cause unauthorized and unconsented contacts to Plaintiffs and the
Classes.
441. Defendants knew that these uniforms were unsafe and dangerous as early as when
they received the results of the pre-launch testing of the uniforms on pilots and the fact that the
APA specifically requested that they not introduce the uniforms into the workplace.
- 115 -
442. Defendant American knew that each of the Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactors
Class has experienced and continues to experience adverse reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms,
regardless of whether or not Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactors Class were wearing the Twin
Hill uniforms themselves. Further, Defendant American knows, by name, each of the Plaintiffs
and the Proximity Reactors Class to be proximity reactors, yet nonetheless requires Plaintiffs and
the Proximity Reactors Class to work around the uniforms, knowing that the Plaintiffs and the
Proximity Reactors Class are being injured as the result of continued exposure to the uniforms.
443. As of at least August 2016 and to this date, both Defendants were fully aware that
the uniforms were unsafe and dangerous, that they were inflicting and continue to inflict batteries
upon Plaintiffs and the Classes. Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered damages as a result of
Defendants’ conduct.
COUNT II
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
445. Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein has been both extreme and outrageous.
446. Defendants have both caused a dangerous substance to be introduced and remain
in or near the Plaintiffs and the Classes.
447. Plaintiffs, and thousands of other American Airlines employees, encounter severe
emotional distress at work because they attend work knowing that (1) their symptoms will worsen
with continued exposure to Twin Hill’s uniforms and (2) their employer, a company that many
- 116 -
have worked for decades, and with full knowledge of the harms caused by these uniforms, as well
as their names, is intentionally causing physical injury to them on a daily basis.
448. Defendant American has knowingly put Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactor Class
in an outrageous and unconscionable position of either (a) missing work, losing income, and losing
any benefits of seniority, or (b) attending work and getting sick each time they attend.
449. And for new hires, all of whom are on a probationary status and all of whom are
given new Twin Hill uniforms, it is even more outrageous, as these employees must quietly endure
this physical torture or lose the new jobs that they only recently obtained.
450. Defendant American knows that each of the Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactors
Class continue to experience adverse reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms just by working around
them or the places where persons have worked with them on, regardless of whether or not Plaintiffs
and the Proximity Reactors Class were wearing the Twin Hill uniforms themselves. Further,
Defendant American knows, by name, each of the Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactors Class yet
nonetheless requires Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactors Class to continue to work around the
uniforms, while knowing that the Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactors Class are being injured as
the result of continued exposure to the uniforms.
451. As for Twin Hill, it too is guilty of outrageous and extreme conduct in that it has
knowingly caused dangerous uniforms to continue to be in or near American Airlines employees
and refuses to issue a recall.
452. Such conduct has caused severe emotional distress and damages to the Plaintiffs
and the Classes.
COUNT III
Strict Liability
(On behalf of all Plaintiffs individually and the Uniform Class against Twin Hill only)
- 117 -
454. The uniforms provided by Twin Hill to American Airlines employees were at the
point of manufacture and continue to be unreasonably dangerous in that they are the only possible
cause of the thousands of adverse reactions that occurred in the American Airlines workforce after
the introduction of the Twin Hill uniforms. The uniforms have caused Plaintiffs and other Uniform
Class members to experience adverse medical reactions, including the cascade of health issues
alleged above.
455. The uniforms contained latent defects causing the uniforms to provoke the adverse
reactions described above when they left Defendant Twin Hill’s control and were provided to
Plaintiffs and other American Airlines employees.
456. As a result of Twin Hill’s actions, Plaintiffs suffered individual damages. Plaintiffs
seek an individual award of compensatory damages, pain and suffering, and any other relief to
which they are entitled under the law.
457. Since at least the fall of 2016 when American’s flight attendants began to report
adverse medical effects from wearing Twin Hill’s uniforms, and possibly earlier, Twin Hill was
aware of the unsafe nature of its uniforms. This conduct demonstrates malice, evil motive, or the
reckless disregard for the rights of others such that an award of punitive damages is appropriate.
458. Because Plaintiffs continue to work for American Airlines, and continue to be
exposed to co-workers who are wearing Twin Hill’s dangerous uniforms, Plaintiffs individually,
and on behalf of the Class, seek to enjoin Twin Hill from selling any additional uniforms to
American’s employees and to require Twin Hill to recall from the market those uniforms it has
already provided to American’s employees. Plaintiffs further seek a declaration that the uniforms
manufactured by Twin Hill for American’s employees are unreasonably dangerous.
- 118 -
COUNT IV
Negligence
(On behalf of all Plaintiffs individually and the Uniform Class against Twin Hill only)
460. Twin Hill had a duty towards Plaintiffs and the Uniform Class to provide uniforms
that were safe and would not cause them harm such as the cascade of adverse reactions set forth
above.
461. Twin Hill breached that duty by providing uniforms that were not safe and that
caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries and the threat of future injuries.
462. As a result of Twin Hill’s actions, Plaintiffs suffered individual damages. Plaintiffs
seek individual awards of compensatory damages, pain and suffering, and any other relief to which
they are entitled under the law.
463. Since at least the fall of 2016 when American’s flight attendants began to report
adverse medical effects from wearing Twin Hill’s uniforms, and possibly earlier, Twin Hill was
aware of the unsafe nature of its uniforms. This conduct demonstrates malice, evil motive, or the
reckless disregard for the rights of others such that an award of punitive damages is appropriate.
464. Because Plaintiffs continue to work for American Airlines, and continue to be
exposed to co-workers who are wearing Twin Hill’s dangerous uniforms, Plaintiffs individually,
and on behalf of the Uniform Class, seek to enjoin Twin Hill from selling any additional uniforms
to American’s employees and to require Twin Hill to recall from the market those uniforms it has
already provided to American’s employees. Plaintiffs further seek a declaration that the uniforms
manufactured by Twin Hill for American’s employees are unreasonably dangerous.
- 119 -
COUNT V
Equitable Relief Including Medical Monitoring
466. Plaintiffs and other Class Members have been, and continue to be, exposed to Twin
Hill’s dangerous uniforms by virtue of their employment at American Airlines.
467. Plaintiffs and other Class Members have experienced and continue to experience
adverse medical symptoms from the exposure to Twin Hill’s uniforms, including skin rashes, ear
and throat irritation, headaches, fatigue, vertigo, the triggering of various auto-immune conditions,
and adverse effects on endocrine as well as liver functions.
468. Some of the adverse medical effects that Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered
from the exposure to Twin’s Hill’s uniforms have latent effects, which may not become known
until some later date.
469. By failing to provide safe uniforms to American Airlines employees, and continuing
to provide unsafe uniforms to American Airlines employees, Twin Hill is strictly liable and has
also breached its duty of reasonable and ordinary care to the Plaintiffs and the Classes. Twin Hill’s
conduct has exposed the Plaintiffs and the Classes to on-going and future risks of harmful medical
conditions.
470. Defendant American knows that each of the Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactors
Class continue to experience adverse reactions to the Twin Hill uniforms on a daily basis since
their proximity reactions were reported to American. Further, American knew, by name, each of
- 120 -
the Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactors Class yet nonetheless required Plaintiffs and the
Proximity Reactors Class to work around the uniforms thereafter, while knowing that the Plaintiffs
and the Proximity Reactors Class were and continue to be injured as the result of continued
exposure to the uniforms.
471. By reason of its battery upon Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactor Class, American
has exposed the Plaintiffs and the Proximity Reactor Class to on-going and future risks of harmful
medical conditions.
472. Furthermore, all American employees exposed to the Twin Hill uniforms are at risk
of future health problems.
473. As a proximate result of Defendants tortious conduct, Plaintiffs and the Classes
have experienced an increased risk of developing additional medical conditions, including skin
rashes, ear and throat irritation, headaches, fatigue, vertigo, the triggering of various auto-immune
conditions, and adverse effects on endocrine as well as liver functions.
474. To remedy Defendants tortious conduct, Defendants should establish and fund a
medical monitoring fund in an amount that will assist in diagnosing the adverse health effects
experienced by Plaintiffs and the Classes now and in the future. This medical monitoring fund is
reasonably necessary to reduce the risk to the Plaintiffs and the Classes of suffering long-term
injuries, diseases and losses.
475. By monitoring and testing Plaintiffs and the Classes, the risk that Plaintiffs and the
Classes will suffer long-term injuries, diseases and losses without adequate treatment will be
significantly reduced.
476. Plaintiffs and the Classes seek an injunction creating a Court-supervised, Defendant-
funded medical monitoring program that will facilitate the diagnosis of Plaintiffs and the Classes
- 121 -
for medical conditions resulting from their exposure to Twin Hill’s unsafe uniforms. The medical
monitoring fund remedy should include a trust fund to pay for the medical monitoring and
diagnosis of Plaintiffs and the Classes as frequently and appropriately as necessary.
477. Plaintiffs and the Classes have no adequate remedy at law in that monetary damages
alone cannot compensate them for the risk of long-term physical and economic losses due to
medical conditions resulting from their exposure to Twin Hill’s uniforms. Without a Court-
approved medical monitoring program as described above, or established by the Court, Plaintiffs
and the Classes will continue to face an unreasonable risk of injury and disability, and remain
undiagnosed.
COUNT VI
Fraud
(On behalf of all Plaintiffs against American,
On behalf of the Uniform Class against American)
479. As alleged above, American has knowingly tried to cover-up the dangers posed by
the toxic Twin Hill uniforms. Specifically, as alleged in paragraphs 8, 102, 216, 241, and 255,
American repeatedly told its entire workforce, including the Uniform Class, that the Twin Hill
uniforms had been proven safe. That was untrue.
480. This includes American’s falsely portraying the uniforms as safe based upon testing
that it knew was incomplete and then misrepresented the results to its workforce.
481. All American employees were entitled to the truth, whether or not they were
proximity reactors, because exposure to these uniforms may have long-term health effects for all
exposed.
482. American made those false statements to its entire workforce, which included
- 122 -
Plaintiffs and the Uniform Class, in order to induce them to continue working at American and to
either wear or work around the Twin Hill uniforms.
483. Plaintiff and the Uniform Class relied upon American’s false statements.
484. By covering-up the truth, thousands have relied upon the falsehoods perpetrated by
American and have been injured and continued to be injured to this date. This is both fraud by
affirmative misstatements as well as fraud by omission. By rolling out the Twin Hill uniforms in
September 2016 when it knew that they posed dangers, American gave Plaintiffs and the Uniform
Class the false belief that they were safe because reasonable employees naturally assume that their
employers will provide them with safe uniforms.
485. Plaintiffs seek individual damages for the fraud perpetrated upon them as well as the
Uniform Class by American.
486. On behalf of the Uniform Class, Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring American to
publicly disclose all of the information that it knows about the safety, or lack thereof, of the Twin
Hill uniforms.
VII. JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all
claims in this Complaint so triable.
VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the other members of
the Class proposed in this Complaint, respectfully request that the Court enter an Order awarding
the following relief:
(a) Certifying this action as a class action; designating Plaintiffs as Representatives
for the Classes; and appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel;
- 123 -
(b) Permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing to commit battery and
intentional infliction of emotional distress upon Plaintiffs and the Classes,
enjoining Twin Hill from continuing to sell the uniforms at issue, requiring Twin
Hill to recall those uniforms previously provided to American Airlines employees,
and requiring American to remove the Twin Hill uniforms from its workforce and
permit its employees to work in an environment free from the Twin Hill uniforms;
or alternatively, for American to adopt NIOSH Recommendation No. 6 and
provide leave, with full pay and benefits, to all employees who provide a physician
note diagnosing them as proximity reactors until the Twin Hill uniforms have been
removed from the workplace;
(c) Ordering Defendants to establish a medical monitoring program that includes (i) a
trust fund, in an amount to be determined, to pay for the medical monitoring of all
American Airlines employees who were exposed to the Twin Hill uniforms, (ii)
notification to all such employees in writing that they may require medical
monitoring necessary to diagnose long-term effects from the Twin Hill uniforms;
and (iii) detailed analysis and disclosure of the chemicals to which the employees
have been exposed so that treating physicians may be better informed to provide
treatment;
(d) Ordering American to publicly disclose all of the information that it knows about
the safety, or lack thereof, of the Twin Hill uniforms;
(e) Awarding Plaintiffs their individual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
(f) Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs and the Classes; and
(g) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
- 124 -
Dated: October 4, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
By:/s/ Todd L. McLawhorn
Todd L. McLawhorn
tmclawhorn@siprut.com
Stewart M. Weltman
sweltman@siprut.com
Michael Chang
mchang@siprut.com
SIPRUT PC
17 North State Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Phone: 312.236.0000
Fax: 312.754.9616
Warren T. Burns*
wburns@burnscharest.com
BURNS CHAREST LLP
500 North Akard Street
Suite 2810
Dallas, Texas 75201
Phone: 469.904.4550
Korey A. Nelson*
knelson@burnscharest.com
Charles J. Gower*
jgower@burnscharest.com
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street
Suite 1170
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Phone: 504.799.2845
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

and the Proposed Putative Classes
- 125 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
Class Action Complaint was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF
system on this 4th day of October 2018, and served electronically on all counsel of record.
/s/ Todd L. McLawhorn

Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill American Airlines - Second Amended Complaint - Public

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill American Airlines - Second Amended Complaint - Public

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFIDENTIAL AND FILED UNDER SEAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THOR ZURBRIGGEN, DENA CATAN, )

to herein as “American” or “American Airlines”), on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all

investigation conducted by their attorneys.

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

pilots, and customer service representatives.

by the beginning of Defendants’ initial production of documents pursuant to this District’s

American produced pursuant to the MIDP show the opposite.

a. two separate wear tests—(i) one in or about 2014-2015 (which was

referenced in the original complaint) and (ii) a much larger one in

early 2016 (with over 500 wear testers)—both of which clearly

demonstrated that the uniforms were causing injuries to a large

swath of the wear testers with injuries similar to those which

happened in connection with the Alaska Airlines/Twin Hill incident

and which were similar to the symptoms that thousands began

b. chemical testing American had conducted by Intertek, which

literally found the uniforms contained (i) “unknown chemicals” but

which Intertek noted likely included potentially dangerous volatile

organic compounds, (ii) eight sensitizers that were found in the

in connection with the rollout, (iii) other potential carcinogens,

including cadmium, pentachlorophenol, tetrachlorophenol, and

formaldehyde, and (iv) most importantly, never stated the uniforms

or fabrics were safe;

established during the wear tests; and

d. what was described by the management head of the uniform rollout

as a “deluge” of reaction reports, made to him and other high level

management, by individuals who were already reacting pre-rollout

in August and early September 2016 as they received their uniforms

in advance of the general rollout.

person can reasonably handle.” (AA9477).1

and is currently being exposed to these toxic uniforms.

uniforms are off-gassing something(s).

uniforms kept rolling in. American dismissed those pleas.

i.e., proximity reactors.

these uniforms are severely back ordered as a result.)

repeated but false assurances that the uniforms are safe.

suffer while they work around the Twin Hill uniforms.

being in proximity to those wearing the Twin Hill uniforms.

in a dangerous environment that it created.

this harm and is insistent on injuring him and others.

symptoms, or injuries resulting from the exposure to the uniforms.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

26. Plaintiff Thor Zurbriggen (“Plaintiff Zurbriggen”), a flight attendant, is a resident

1332, Plaintiff Zurbriggen is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Zurbriggen is an employee of American

citizen of Connecticut and is currently domiciled in Southbury, Connecticut. For purposes of 28

employee of American Airlines, Inc.

American Airlines, Inc.

1332, Plaintiff Chester is a citizen of Indiana. Plaintiff Chester is an employee of American

30. Plaintiff Kimberly Johnson (“Plaintiff Kimberly Johnson”), a flight attendant, is a

Kimberly Johnson is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.

employee of American Airlines, Inc.

Crumrine is a citizen of Texas. Plaintiff Crumrine is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.

of American Airlines, Inc.

Terry is a citizen of Iowa. Plaintiff Terry is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.

37. Plaintiff Connie Germond McCord (“Plaintiff McCord”), a flight attendant, is a

is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.

1332, Plaintiff Behnke is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Behnke is an employee of American

citizen of Pennsylvania and is currently domiciled in Macungie, Pennsylvania. For purposes of 28

employee of American Airlines, Inc.

U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff Branch is a citizen of Georgia. Plaintiff Branch is an employee of

American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Hamdan is a citizen of Illinois. Plaintiff Hamdan is an employee of American Airlines,

Isaac is a citizen of Utah. Plaintiff Isaac is an employee of American Airlines, Inc.