Why and How Flyers Should Sue Southwest Over Its New Deadly Snack

WASHINGTON - EntSun -- Southwest Airlines' [SW] decision to begin serving pistachios creates a serious and completely unavoidable risk of death by anaphylactic shock to all passengers, including many with no known food allergies, but it can be fought with legal action under a unique Washington, D.C. statute, says a public interest law professor who has won over 100 cases under that powerful and far reaching law. . . .
Fortunately, the D.C. Human Rights Act (https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/t...) offers a unique protection by prohibiting any actions which can have the "effect or consequence" (https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/s...) of adversely affecting persons with a disability.

More on EntSun News

• Cygnet Theatre Announces The Cast & Creative Team Of Cygnet's A Magical Holiday
• Visions Museum of Textile Art Presents ARTwear Exhibition Celebrating Innovation in Wearable Fiber
• ALYXX and Acathla Clothing Launch Limited "Creature" Design
• After 20 Years Without a Home, Poet El Rivera Gets a Second Chance Thanks to Thread Haus Co
• Kisau Photography Releases "Fashion and Editorial Photography Sixteen: Tales From Around the World"

So flyers who have a serious allergy to nuts can file a simple complaint with D.C.'s Office of Human Rights (https://ohr.dc.gov/service/file-discrimination-...) and/or bring a law suit in court under the D.C. Human Rights Act as well as the Air Carrier Access Act, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has won over 100 cases under the D.C. statute.

Better yet, charitable organizations such as the nonprofit Food Allergy Research and Education (https://www.foodallergy.org/), whose serious concerns about the new policy were cited in the article, could bring a much stronger legal action on behalf of its members who live in D.C.

Doing something - indeed, something completely unnecessary because SW already serves pretzels, graham crackers and Oreos - which endangers the health and lives of only a small number of passengers with disabilities is the very definition of discriminating against people with disabilities, says Professor Banzhaf, who successfully argued that those sensitive to tobacco smoke were protected as people with disabilities; and which led to smoking bans on airplanes, in offices, and in many other public areas.

More on EntSun News

• Turbo vs. Experts: Tracking OddsTrader's AI Performance at the NFL's Midpoint
• Outreaching.io Appoints Rameez Ghayas Usmani as CEO, Recognized as Best HARO Link Building Expert in the United States
• Winzele: A Trusted Isolation Transformer Manufacturer
• Luxury Mediterranean Estate in Gotha Sells for $1.52 Million, Closing $45,000 Over Asking
• ZEELOOL's Black Friday Sale Starts Early with Up to 80% Off Frames

He suggests that people who contribute to charitable organizations which promise to help protect children and adults with allergies urge them to immediately bring one or more legal actions against SW before a child or adult dies of anaphylactic shock.

He notes that anaphylactic shock is a very serious problem and medical emergency which is estimated to kill some 150-200 people each year in the U.S.  Indeed, the risk of death from anaphylactic shock while flying is so serious that all major U.S. airlines are required to carry epinephrine to treat those who become afflicted while flying, notes the activist law professor.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf