Mark Barcus District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma">

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-18-2013

Case Style: Nikisha Harris v. Alisha Hospitality, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2011-3465

Judge: Mark Barcus

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: David Warta

Defendant's Attorney: Gentner F. Drummond, Garry M. Gaskins and Wendy Poole

Description: Nikisha Harris sued Alisha Hospitality, Inc. on a wrongful termination theory.

The Pre-Trail Order provided in part:

* * *

Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant in September of 2008 as a front desk representative at Defendant’s La Quinta Inn & Suites, located near 41St Street and Sheridan Road in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Defendant approved Plaintiff’s request for FMLA in December 2009. Defendant replaced Plaintiff’s position, and terminated her employment on or about March 4, 2010.

Plaintiff Nikisha Harris alleges Alisha Hospitality, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”), violated the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2611, et seq. (hereinafter “FMLA” or “the Act”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant interfered with her rights under the FMLA and terminated her employment in retaliation for exercising her rights under the FMLA. It is anticipated that Defendant will argue that it was not a covered “employer,” as defined under the FMLA, and therefore Plaintiff was never entitled to leave under the FMLA. In this event, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant is estopped from relying upon this defense based upon its prior conduct and Plaintiff’s detrimental reliance thereon.


Violation(s) the FMLA I 29 U.S.C. § 2611, et seg.

List Damages or Relief Sought.

a. Lost Wages $ 45,000.00
b. Liquidated Damages $ 45,000.00
c. Consequential Damages TBD
d. Attorneys’ Fees TBD
TOTAL In excess of $90,000.00

4. Defendant’s Contentions: Defendant is not a covered employer under the FMLA. Even if Plaintiff is entitled to FMLA leave, Plaintiff received the full 12 weeks of FMLA and was terminated for failing to return to work. Defendant did not terminate Plaintiff in retaliation for exercising her rights under the FMLA. Defendant did not mitigate her damages and is not entitled to the damages sought.


* * *

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: