WASHINGTON - TelAve -- 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 TelAve News

• Cybersecurity is Fast Becoming a Vital Issue for Protecting Personal Information and Portfolio Wealth
• 10 Essential Tips for Maximizing Value When Choosing Your Orlando Wedding Venue
• Americans Are Trading Offices for Beaches: How Business Ownership Enables the Ultimate Location Freedom
• Boston Industrial Solutions' Natron® DC Series Ink Has Had an Upgrade!
• Colony Ridge Proudly Supports the All Ears! 2025 Sporting Clays Tournament

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 TelAve News

• Jacob Emrani Nominated for LA Executive Award
• Kansas City Steak Company Shares the Return of Their Holiday Gift Box
• Dr. Jay A. Johannigman Delivers Lecture at the John R. Border Memorial Lectureship in Buffalo
• Powering the Next Frontier of the $1 Trillion Space Economy: Ascent Solar Technologies (N A S D A Q: ASTI)
• Taikan's T-V856S VMC Earns Prestigious 2025 Vogel Global Pioneer Award

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