Rachelle Davis v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.

I) Does protection against retaliation apply even if the original complaint or charge was untimely or was found to lack merit when initiated by the same actor but different retaliatory conduct; Did the Appeals Court ERR , in holding that this action is timely-barred by its charge of Retaliation when originally included within the scope of the Plaintiffs right to file a Federal lawsuit determined by the charge's content. II) When an employer has an ONGOING obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to provide such accommodation constitute a violation each time the employee needs it; When applying the statute of limitations , when is a claim timely-barred when there remains a need for an accommodation that has yet to be provided ; Must a plaintiff file a second EEOC charge in order to judicially pursue a timely claim when there is already NOTICE of an employee’s desire for an accommodation to remain employed in some capacity. Ill) Did the Appeals Court ERR in dismissing this Pro Se complaint as timely-barred without allowing the opportunity to present evidence of a timely discrete act and an act of retaliation that would allow proof of a set of facts that would entitle relief to this claim , when the law requires the Court to read Petitioners’ pro se complaint, indulgently . IV) Did the Appeals Court ERR in dismissing this claim as timely-barred , when a timely charge may also challenge related incidents that occur after a charge is filed , as within this complaint.