Ferreira Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION
§
MAXIMILLIAN FERREIRA, §
§ Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-44
Plaintiff, §
§
§
v. §
§
The Honorable ELAINE L. CHAO, §
in her official capacity as Secretary §
§
of Transportation, and STEPHEN
§
DICKSON in his official capacity as §
Administrator Federal Aviation §
Administration, §
§
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Maximillian Ferreira (“Plaintiff”), sues Defendant, ELAINE L. CHAO, in her
official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, and Defendant,
STEPHEN DICKSON in his official capacity as Administrator Federal Aviation Administration
(“Defendants”), and states the following:
Plaintiff began working for the Federal Aviation Administration in 2009 and was
certified as an Air Traffic Controller Specialist (ATCS) in 2010 at the Pensacola Air Traffic
Control Tower (ATCT). The FAA rates its air traffic control facilities on a scale from five to
twelve based upon air traffic complexity. 1 The Pensacola ATCT was rated as a level six facility.
1
The greater the number, the more complex the air traffic.
1
LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN

17 EAST FLAGLER STREET ∙ SUITE 223 ∙ MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 ∙ TEL.: 305.358.6800 ∙ FAX: 305.358.6808
In 2011 Plaintiff was transferred to the Little Rock, Arkansas facility to work the Tower
and the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility (“TRACON”). It took Plaintiff approximately
eight (8) months to become fully certified in the tower and the TRACON. The FAA rated Little
Rock a level eight (8) facility. Plaintiff wanted to continue working at more complex stations, so
after working Little Rock for several months as a fully qualified Tower and TRACON controller,
Plaintiff asked for a transfer and the FAA granted Plaintiff’s request.
In 2013, Plaintiff transferred to the New York TRACON located in Westbury New York,
a level twelve facility and one of the busiest and most complex TRACONS on the East Coast of
the United States. Due to an issue that affected the entire training class, Plaintiff was not
allowed to qualify at the New York TRACON and he was transferred.
In 2014, Plaintiff arrived at the Austin Air Traffic Control Tower and TRACON from
New York. Plaintiff certified in the Austin tower within three (3) months using the minimum
number of training hours and was told that he would need to wait for a training slot to open
before he could begin training in the TRACON.
Plaintiff was at the Austin facility for approximately seven (7) months working in the
tower prior to his first training session in the TRACON. During his approximately seven (7)
months in the tower, Plaintiff was responsible for clearing aircraft for takeoff or landing, issuing
taxiing instructions and passing weather information to arriving and departing aircraft. As a part
of Plaintiff’s duties in the tower, he was required to use the same radar apparatus for ensuring
aircraft flight safety as in the TRACON. Plaintiff was also certified as the Controller in Charge
of the Tower where he supervised other controllers and directed their actions. Plaintiff executed
his duties in the tower without any significant issues.

While working the Austin Tower in 2014, Plaintiff was recognized for his
professionalism for providing safe and efficient air traffic services during a period of higher than
normal air traffic.
During his first seven (7) months at Austin, Plaintiff socialized and made friends with
several other flight controllers. Plaintiff did not hide the fact that he is gay, and during his first
several months, no one seemed to care.
Plaintiff’s first training session in the TRACON occurred in late June of 2014. Plaintiff’s
first trainer was Cody Summers. During the training session, Mr. Summers was abusive and
during the debrief, Mr. Summers called Plaintiff an “asshole.” Several days later, Darrell
Steward, ATCS called Plaintiff at home and informed him “Cody is coming after you.” Shortly
thereafter, someone in the TRACON called Plaintiff a “maricon (faggot).” Everything at work
started to go downhill from there.
I
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Maximillian Ferreira (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Ferreira”) is a former
employee of Defendants, and sues Defendants under the discrimination provisions of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) for sex
discrimination (sexual orientation), hostile work environment and retaliation. Plaintiff seeks
back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, reinstatement or front pay, injunctive relief
and attorney’s fees and costs.
2. ELAINE L. CHAO, in her official capacity, is a proper Defendant because she is
the Secretary of the Department of Transportation.

3. ELAINE L. CHAO, as the Secretary of the Department of Transportation violated
the Federal Civil Rights statute that prohibits employers from discriminating against Plaintiff in
the terms and conditions of employment because of his sex.
4. STEPHEN DICKSON, in his official capacity, is a proper Defendant because he
is the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
5. STEPHEN DICKSON, as the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration, violated the Federal Civil Rights statute that prohibits employers from
discriminating against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of employment because of his
sex.
6. ELAINE L. CHAO and STEPHEN DICKSON violated Plaintiff’s Federal Civil
Rights when they allowed Plaintiff to be the victim of discrimination and a hostile work
environment based upon his sexual orientation/sex.
7. ELAINE L. CHAO and STEPHEN DICKSON violated Mr. Ferreira’s Federal
Civil Rights when they allowed Plaintiff’s employer, the Federal Aviation Administration to
retaliate against Plaintiff for reporting discrimination or filing complaint(s) of discrimination.
II
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This is an action arising under, inter alia, Title VII. This Court has federal-
question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
9. Plaintiff, Maximillian Ferreira, is an individual who at all times material was
employed by Defendants as an Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS)/Certified Professional
Controller In Training (CPC-IT)(AT2152-HH) at the Austin Air Traffic Control Tower facility
located in Austin, Texas.

4

10. Venue is proper in the United States District Court Western District of Texas
because Defendants operate a facility in Austin, Texas, and most, if not all of the events occurred
in Austin, Texas.
III
SATISFACTION OF CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
11. Plaintiff’s initial contact with the EEO regarding the discrimination occurred on
March 3, 2015.
12. Plaintiff received his Notice of Right to File on May 27, 2015, and filed his
formal complaint on June 5, 2015.
13. Plaintiff’s complaint was accepted on June 26, 2015.
14. The EEO investigation was conducted between June 2015 and October 2015, and
the ROI was issued on November 27, 2015.
15. The Final Agency Decision (“FAD”) was issued on March 18, 2016.
16. Pursuant to the FAD, Plaintiff was given the option of filing an appeal of the
decision with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 30 calendar days from the
date [Plaintiff] received the final decision. Plaintiff filed his appeal on April 20, 2016, and the
FAA filed its Response to the Appeal on June 27, 2016. Plaintiff filed a Reply to the FAA’s
Response on July 12, 2016.
17. On October 16, 2019, the EEOC issued its decision and instructed Plaintiff that he
had ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the decision to file a civil action in an
appropriate United States District Court.
18. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action have been satisfied or
waived.
5

IV
THE APPLICABLE STATUTE
19. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, provides in pertinent part at
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) as follows;
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer —
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate

against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race [or] sex ...; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way
which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities
or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s
race [or] sex....
20. Title VII makes it an unlawful employment practice for a person covered by the
Act to discriminate against an individual "because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful
employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or
participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter." 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
V
FACTS OF THE CASE
21. Plaintiff was an Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS) (AT-2152-IH) and
received the title of Certified Professional Controller-In Training (CPC-IT) in March 2010.
Plaintiff also earned certifications at three (3) ATCT facilities and one TRACON facility.
22. Plaintiff began working at the Austin facility in February of 2014.
23. Plaintiff qualified to work the Austin Tower and was also qualified as a Controller
in Charge of the Tower.

6

24. On or about December 29, 2014, Plaintiff made a complaint of harassment to
supervisor ATCS Susan Green regarding his treatment by Mr. Summers and the phone call he
received from Mr. Steward.
25. Plaintiff was told several times by his supervisors that his complaint of
harassment had been transmitted to the Accountability Board. 2 However, Plaintiff was never
formally contacted or interviewed regarding his complaint of harassment. When Plaintiff
contacted the Accountability Board to inquire as to the status of his complaint of harassment, he
was told that the Accountability Board did not have a record of a complaint being filed.
26. On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff met with Mr. Robert Morris, Air Traffic
Manager, Mr. Darrell Steward ATCS, and Mr. Gregory Blackford. Mr. Steward informed Mr.
Morris, “Max will not certify at Austin on these days off with that crew.” Mr. Steward
volunteered to train Plaintiff and to get him TRACON certified at the Austin facility.
27. After the meeting with Mr. Morris, Plaintiff was working in the TRACON
running data strips to the controllers. Mr. Summers and Henry Rice, ATCS, were working on
position and when Plaintiff was walking back to his desk, Mr. Summers or Mr. Rice called
Plaintiff a “maricon.”
28. Plaintiff immediately reported the incident to Ms. Green who was working at the
supervisor’s desk.
29. Within a few days after the incident in the TRACON when Plaintiff was called
“maricon,” Mr. Summers became hostile, yelled and berated Plaintiff while Plaintiff was
2
The FAA Accountability Board’s purpose is to provide oversight and ensure that management
is accountable for responding to allegations of sexual harassment, misconduct of a sexual nature,
harassment or other misconduct based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual
orientation, age, and disability and related reprisal.
7

relieving him in the Tower. Later that afternoon, Mr. Summers continued his harassment and
humiliation of Plaintiff in the breakroom where he referred to Plaintiff as a “faggot” while
speaking to several other Controllers.
30. Plaintiff reported the incident to Ms. Green in the Tower stairwell the next day.
31. In January 2015, Plaintiff spoke with Mr. Potter to ascertain what was being done
because Mr. Summers was still one of Plaintiff’s trainers and Plaintiff was still being harassed.
32. In the third week of January 2015, Plaintiff inquired as to what was being done
regarding his complaint of harassment and he was told by Ms. Green that Mr. Potter and Mr.
Morris were aware of it and handling it appropriately. However, Plaintiff was unaware of any
changes that had been made and Plaintiff was still being harassed.
33. Even though Plaintiff had made several specific complaints, and management was
aware of the harassment that Plaintiff was enduring and the effect it was having on his training in
the TRACON, management made the decision that it would be easier to paint Plaintiff as the
problem rather than resolve the issue of the discrimination and the hostile work environment.
34. Shortly thereafter, management suspended Plaintiff’s training even though
Plaintiff had only utilized 26% of his training time (74% of the training hours were unused).
Plaintiff “case” was referred to the Training Review Board (“TRB”).
35. On or about March 27, 2015, Plaintiff initiated EEO counseling regarding the
original harassment that had occurred in December of 2014 and subsequent harassment and
reprisals.

36. Mr. Summers continued to disparage Plaintiff and in late April or early May of
2015, Mr. Summers called Plaintiff a “fucking faggot” and said that “I wish they would fire
him.”
37. Plaintiff’s Formal Complaint claimed that Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile
work environment due to his sexual orientation and that he was also subjected to reprisal for
prior EEO activity.
38. In April of 2015, management terminated Plaintiff’s training and placed Plaintiff
on paid administrative leave. Management also restricted Plaintiff’s access to the Austin facility
claiming it was “for his own safety.”
39. On or about May 27, 2015, a Notice of Right to File was received and Plaintiff
filed his Formal Complaint (2015-26219-FAA-05) on June 5, 2015. On June 26, 2015,
Plaintiff’s Formal Complaint was accepted.
40. On July 22, 2015 Plaintiff was served a memo indicating that his termination from
employment had been proposed and that the decision to terminate Plaintiff was under review by
John McCartney, the Director Air Traffic Operation Eastern Service Area South.
41. An investigation was conducted regarding the Formal Complaint and an ROI was
issued on November 27, 2015, and the Final Agency Decision was issued on March 18, 2016.
On or about March 21, 2016, Plaintiff received a Notice of Dismissal of his Complaint. On April
20, 2016, Plaintiff timely filed an appeal of the dismissal with the EEOC.
42. Plaintiff remained on paid administrative leave and on August 12, 2016, he did
not receive a paycheck. After conducting an inquiry as to why he had not received a paycheck,
Plaintiff learned that his employment with the FAA had been terminated on July 11, 2016.

43. On October 16, 2019, the EEOC issued its decision and instructed Plaintiff that he
had ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the decision to file a civil action in an
appropriate United States District Court.
44. Defendants are in possession of all of the aforementioned complaints, responses,
and replies, as well as the Report of Investigation and the Final Agency Decision.
VI
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: SEX DISCRIMINATION
(SEXUAL ORIENTATION) IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
45. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 44 of the Complaint as set forth above.
46. Disparaging remarks concerning Plaintiff’s sexual orientation were made by Cody
Summers, Plaintiff’s TRACON Trainer.
47. Plaintiff reported the remarks to his supervisors, who promised to take action.
However, Mr. Summers continued to be assigned to Plaintiff as his trainer, and the harassment
continued.
48. Plaintiff’s supervisors and managers, Ms. Green, Mr. Morris and Mr. Potter were
aware of the complaints and were aware of Plaintiff’s sexual orientation/sex.
49. Plaintiff’s supervisors and managers decided to terminate Plaintiff’s training, at
least in part, due to Plaintiff’s sexual orientation/sex.
50. The fact that Plaintiff is male and gay was a motivating factor in the decision to
terminate Plaintiff’s training.
51. Employees in relationships with partners of the opposite sex were not subjected to
discrimination by Plaintiff’s trainers.
10

52. Employees in relationships with partners of the opposite sex were not subjected to
discrimination by Plaintiff’s supervisors and managers.
53. Plaintiff’s trainer(s) would purposefully frustrate Plaintiff’s training by constantly
offering unwarranted criticism regarding Plaintiff’s style and effectiveness in controlling the
aircraft in his area of control.
54. The consequence of the harassment and intimidation was that Plaintiff’s training
was suspended and then terminated.
55. Defendants’ decision to suspend Plaintiff’s training in the TRACON at the Austin
facility was based in part upon the recommendation of Plaintiff’s trainers.
56. Defendants’ decision to terminate Plaintiff’s training in the TRACON at the
Austin facility was based upon the recommendation of Plaintiff’s supervisors and managers.
57. The fact that Plaintiff is male and gay was a motivating factor in the trainers’ and
supervisors’ recommendation that Plaintiff’s training be suspended and then terminated.
58. A motivating factor in terminating Plaintiff’s employment was because of his
sexual orientation/sex.
59. As a direct, natural and proximate result of the treatment by Defendants, Plaintiff
has suffered damages, including but not limited to lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary
losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and
other non-pecuniary losses.
60. Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff has also caused him irreparable harm through
the violation of his federal statutory rights against sex discrimination, for which there is no
adequate remedy at law.
11

61. Plaintiff is entitled, pursuant to § 2000e-5(k), to recover a reasonable attorney’s
fee, litigation expenses and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Maximillian Ferreira prays that this Court will grant judgment:
One, awarding judgment against ELAINE L. CHAO and STEPHEN DICKSON, for the back
pay, front pay and benefits to which Mr. Ferreira would have been entitled but for Defendants’
sexually discriminatory acts in violation of Title VII;
Two, awarding judgment against ELAINE L. CHAO and STEPHEN DICKSON for
compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering;
Three, awarding Plaintiff his costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(k);
Four, prejudgment interest on damages awarded for past, but not future injuries; and
Five, granting such other and further relief as is just.
VII
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
63. Disparaging remarks concerning Plaintiff’s sexual orientation were made by Cody
Summers, Plaintiff’s trainer.
64. Plaintiff reported the remarks to his supervisors, who promised to take action.
However, Mr. Summers continued to be assigned to Plaintiff as his trainer, and the harassment
continued.
65. Plaintiff’s supervisors and managers, Ms. Green, Mr. Morris and Mr. Potter were
aware of the complaints and were aware of Plaintiff’s sexual orientation/sex.
66. The offending behavior perpetuated on Plaintiff by Plaintiffs’ trainer(s) was
sufficiently severe or pervasive and altered Plaintiff’s employment conditions and created an
abusive working environment.

12

67. The offending behavior perpetuated on Plaintiff by Plaintiff’s trainer(s) was
unwelcome.
68. Plaintiff perceived the working environment perpetuated by Plaintiff’s trainer(s)
to be abusive or hostile.
69. The constant harassment by Plaintiff’s trainer(s) resulted in a constructive
alteration and change of conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. Due to the hostile work
environment perpetuated by Plaintiff’s trainer(s) during the relevant time period, Plaintiff
suffered stress, humiliation, pain and suffering and Plaintiff was damaged.
70. Plaintiff’s trainer(s) purposefully filed training reports that were inaccurate or
contained information that painted Plaintiff in an unfavorable light in order to harass and
intimidate Plaintiff.
71. Plaintiff’s trainer(s) would purposefully frustrate Plaintiff’s training by constantly
offering unwarranted criticism regarding Plaintiff’s style and effectiveness in controlling the
aircraft in his area of control.
72. The consequence of the harassment and intimidation was that Plaintiff’s training
was suspended and then terminated.
73. Controllers in training who were in relationships with partners of the opposite sex
were not subjected to a hostile work environment by Plaintiff’s trainer(s).
74. A reasonable person in the Plaintiff’s circumstances would consider the working
environment suffered by Plaintiff to be abusive or hostile.
pay, front pay and benefits to which Mr. Ferreira would have been entitled but for Defendants’
13

sexually discriminatory acts in violation of Title VII;
§ 2000e-5(k);
VIII
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
76. Plaintiff alleges he was retaliated against in violation of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, § 704(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e–3(a).
77. Plaintiff engaged in a statutorily protected activity when Plaintiff complained to
his supervisors that he was subjected to harassment at work due to his sexual orientation (gay
male)/sex.
78. On or about December 29, 2014, Plaintiff made a complaint alleging that he was
being subjected to harassment at work due to his sex (sexual orientation) to his supervisor Ms.
Green who was required to report the incident/complaint to the Accountability Board.
79. On or about June 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed his formal EEO complaint.
80. Subsequent to his complaint, Plaintiff’s managers and supervisors retaliated
against him by not changing his trainers, who continued to harass and intimidate him.
against him by suspending his training.
against him by terminating his training.

14

against him by recommending or supporting the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
84. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a proximate or legal result of Defendants’
retaliation in suspending his training, terminating his training and terminating his employment.
pay and benefits to which Mr. Ferreira would have been entitled but Defendants’ retaliation;
§ 2000e-5(k);
Demand for Jury Trial
Plaintiff, Maximillian Ferreira demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully Submitted January 14, 2020.
By: /s/ Colin Walsh /s Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq.

Colin Walsh Lowell J. Kuvin
Texas Bar No. 24079538 Fla. Bar No.: 53072
WILEY WALSH, P.C. lowell@kuvinlaw.com
1011 San Jacinto Blvd., Ste. 401 Law Office of Lowell J. Kuvin
Austin, TX 78701 17 East Flagler St., Suite 223
Telephone: (512) 27-5527 Miami, Florida 33131
Facsimile: (512) 201-1263 Tel: 305.358.6800
colin@wileywalsh.com Fax: 305.358.6808
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
Pro Hac Vice (To Be Filed)
15


Ferreira Complaint

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

Ferreira Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Maximillian Ferreira (“Plaintiff”), sues Defendant, ELAINE L. CHAO, in her

STEPHEN DICKSON in his official capacity as Administrator Federal Aviation Administration

(“Defendants”), and states the following:

LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN

allowed to qualify at the New York TRACON and he was transferred.

before he could begin training in the TRACON.

his duties in the tower without any significant issues.

LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN

normal air traffic.

several months, no one seemed to care.

started to go downhill from there.

1. Plaintiff, Maximillian Ferreira (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Ferreira”) is a former

and attorney’s fees and costs.

2. ELAINE L. CHAO, in her official capacity, is a proper Defendant because she is

the Secretary of the Department of Transportation.

LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN

the terms and conditions of employment because of his sex.

4. STEPHEN DICKSON, in his official capacity, is a proper Defendant because he

is the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.

5. STEPHEN DICKSON, as the Administrator of the Federal Aviation

6. ELAINE L. CHAO and STEPHEN DICKSON violated Plaintiff’s Federal Civil

environment based upon his sexual orientation/sex.

7. ELAINE L. CHAO and STEPHEN DICKSON violated Mr. Ferreira’s Federal

retaliate against Plaintiff for reporting discrimination or filing complaint(s) of discrimination.

question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

9. Plaintiff, Maximillian Ferreira, is an individual who at all times material was

employed by Defendants as an Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS)/Certified Professional

located in Austin, Texas.

LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN

formal complaint on June 5, 2015.

13. Plaintiff’s complaint was accepted on June 26, 2015.

the ROI was issued on November 27, 2015.

Response on July 12, 2016.

appropriate United States District Court.

LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) as follows;

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer —

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate

participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter." 42

22. Plaintiff began working at the Austin facility in February of 2014.

in Charge of the Tower.

LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN

received from Mr. Steward.

formally contacted or interviewed regarding his complaint of harassment. When Plaintiff

LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN

humiliation of Plaintiff in the breakroom where he referred to Plaintiff as a “faggot” while

speaking to several other Controllers.

34. Shortly thereafter, management suspended Plaintiff’s training even though

Plaintiff “case” was referred to the Training Review Board (“TRB”).

LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN

prior EEO activity.

claiming it was “for his own safety.”

Plaintiff’s Formal Complaint was accepted.

LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN

appropriate United States District Court.

44. Defendants are in possession of all of the aforementioned complaints, responses,

Summers, Plaintiff’s TRACON Trainer.

aware of the complaints and were aware of Plaintiff’s sexual orientation/sex.

49. Plaintiff’s supervisors and managers decided to terminate Plaintiff’s training, at

least in part, due to Plaintiff’s sexual orientation/sex.

terminate Plaintiff’s training.