Date: 12-09-2014

Case Style: Ki Son Willis v. Michael Gentry d/b/a McDonalds and McDonalds Corporation

Case Number: CJ-2011-527

Judge: Jefferson D. Sellers

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Dan Somlen, Don Smolen and Lauren Lambright

Defendant's Attorney: Jim Robertson, Mary Lohrke and Miles McFadden for Michael Gentry and 2GRM, LLC

Pat Cremin for McDonald's Corporation

Description: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Ki Son Willis, through her attorney of record; Dartkl E Smolen, of Smolen, Smolen & Roytman, PLLC and brings this action against thç.. Defendants, Micheal Gentry d/b/a McDonalds and 2GRM, LLC, a domestie, lirnite&: liability company, for violations of her constitutionally protected rights arising diit cf her employment and temlination by said Defendants.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant Michael Gentry d/b/a McDonald’s is a resident of Tulsa County
company regularly doing business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma and employs more than
fifteen employees.
3. Defendant 2GRM, LLC is a domestic limited liability company regularly doing
business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma and employs more than fifteen employees.
4. The incidents and occurrences which form the basis of Plaintiff’s action occurred
in Tulsa County.
5. The plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and has filed this lawsuit within ninety-days from her receipt of
a Notice of Right to Sue.
6. This Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Tulsa County.
7. Compensatory damages are sought pursuant to Burk, 25 O.S. §l 101, 1301 et seq.
8. Punitive damages are sought pursuant to Burk, 25 O.S. §l 101, 1301 et seq.
9. Costs and attorney’s fees may be awarded pursuant to Burk, 25 O.S. §l10l,
1301 etseq.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
10. Plaintiff, a sixty-year old Asian Korean female, worked as the manager for the McDonald’s restaurant located at 1708 E. 1st Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Plaintiff was a faithfiul employee of the defendants for thirty-four (34) years.
11. Plaintiff was qualified to perform her job and earned a satisfactory work record while employed with Defendants. In thirty-four years of service, the Plaintiff never called in sick and always arrived to work early.
12. On or around early 2010, new management took over the location where the Plaintiff was employed and began discriminating against the plaintiff on the basis of her age, national origin and race.
13. The Plaintiff was treated differently than her younger, non-Asian, non-Korean coworkers. After new management, Defendant Michael Gentry and Store Manager Sheriee, arrived the plaintiffs work began being scrutinized in a way that her younger, non-Asian coworkers’ work was not scrutinized. The plaintiff received discipline for minor infractions while her younger, non-Asian, non-Korean coworkers who violated policy would not receive discipline. Without following their progressive discipline policy, the defendant terminated the plaintiff for allegedly failing to close out a system. The plaintiff had not been previously waned or disciplined for this,
14. Further, the plaintiffs control number was not working properly to close out the system as it would not allow her to log in to the computer. She explained this to her supervisor and she was still terminated.
15. The plaintiff is aware of younger, non-Asian, non-Korean employees who were treated better than her, as they were not terminated for similar violations with no previous discipline like the Plaintiff.
16. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a Notice of Right to Sue on October 28,2010.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE OADA 25 0.S. S 1301 et seq
Under the Burke public policy tort.
17. Plaintiff, Ki Son Willis, incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-16.
18. The discrimination committed by Defendants is contrary to Oklahoma’s anti- discrimination statute pursuant to the Burke public policy tort. Plaintiff is suited to recover damages for emotional distress and punitive damages based upon the wanton and willful conduct of Defendants.
19. By treating the Plaintiff differently than her coworkers who were substantially younger, subjecting plaintiff to different terms and conditions than her substantially younger coworkers, and terminating the plaintiff the Defendants have violated the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA) 25 O.S. § 1301, et seq.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants for:
a. Back pay and lost benefits; front pay until normal retirement
b. Compensatory damages for her mental anguish, pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary losses;
c. Punitive damages for the intentional and knowing acts of discrimination committed by Defendants’ management and executives;
d. Her attorney fees and the costs and expenses of this action;
e. Injunctive Relief
f. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE OADA 25 O.S. 1301 ci seq
Under the Burke pHblic policy tort
20. Plaintiff, Ki Son Willis, incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-19.
21. The discrimination committed by Defendants is contrary to Oklahoma’s anti- discrimination statute pursuant to the Burke public policy tort Plaintiff is suited to recover damages for emotional distress and punitive damages based upon the wanton and willful conduct of Defendants.
22. By treating the Plaintiff differently than her non-Asian coworkers, subjecting plaintiff to different terms and conditions than her non-Asian coworkers, and terminating the plaintiff the Defendants have violated the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA) 25 0.5. § 1301, et seq.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants for:
a. Back pay and lost benefits; front pay until normal retirement
b. Compensatory damages for her mental anguish, pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary losses;
c. Punitive damages for the intentional and knowing acts of discrimination committed by Defendants’ management and executives;
d. Her attorney fees and the costs and expenses of this action;
e. Injunctive Relief
1’. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE OADA 25
0.S. 1301 et seq Under the Burke Dublic policy tort.
23. Plaintiff, Ki Son Willis, incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-22.
24. The discrimination committed by Defendants is contrary to Oklahoma’s anti- discrimination statute pursuant to the Burke public policy tort. Plaintiff is suited to recover damages for emotional distress and punitive damages based upon the wanton and willfiul conduct of Defendants.
25. By treating the Plaintiff differently than her non-Korean coworkers, subjecting plaintiff to different terms and conditions than her non-Korean coworkers, and terminating the plaintiff the Defendants have violated the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA) 25 O.S. § 1301, etseq.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants for:
a. Back pay and lost benefits; front pay until normal retirement
b. Compensatory damages for her mental anguish, pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary losses;
c. Punitive damages for the intentional and knowing acts of discrimination committed by Defendants’ management and executives;
d. Her attorney fees and the costs and expenses of this action;
e. Injunctive Relief
f. Such other relief as the Court dcems just and equitable.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26. Plaintiff, Ki Son Willis, incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-25.
27. The Defendants’ actions of intentional and malicious discrimination are extreme
and outrageous and have caused severe emotional and psychological damage to the
Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants for:
a. Back pay and lost benefits; front pay until normal retirement
b. Compensatory damages for her mental anguish, pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary losses;
c. Punitive damages for the intentional and knowing acts of discrimination committed by Defendants’ management and executives;
d. Her attorney fees and the costs and expenses of this action;
e. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant her the relief sought including, but not limited to, actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), with interest accruing from date of filing of suit, punitive damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), back pay and lost benefits, compensatory damages for mental anguish, pain and suffering and other non- pecuniary loss, reasonable attorneys fees, injunctive relief, and all other relief deemed appropriate by this Court.


Defendants, Micheal Gentry (“Gentry”)’ and 2GRM, LLC (“2GRM”) (collectively the “Defendants”), submit the following Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Amended
Petition:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. With regard to Paragraph 1 of the Amended Petition, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning Plaintiff’s residency, and the same are therefore denied.
2. With regard to Paragraph 2 of the Amended Petition, Gentry admits that he is an individual residing in Tulsa County. Gentry denies doing business as McDonald’s and denies employing more than fifteen employees. Gentry denies that he was Plaintiffs employer and further denies that he is a proper defendant or that he has any personal liability to Plaintiff.
3. With regard to Paragraph 3 of the Amended Petition, 2QRIVI admits that it isa domestic limited liability company operating in Tulsa County, Oklahoma and admits that employs more than fifteen employees. However, 2GRM denies any liability to Plaintiff.
4. With regard to Paragraph 4 of the Amended Petition, Delendants admit that the alleged incidents and occurrences that form the basis of Plaintiffs actioi allegedly occurred in Tulsa County and that venue is, therefore, proper. However, Defendants deny any liability to Plaintiff.
5. With regard to Paragraph 5 of the Amended Petition, Defendants admit that
Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination against McDonalds with the OHRC on or about August
18, 2010, alleging race, age and national origin discrimination with regard to her discharge.
Defendants further admit that a Dismissal and Notice of Rights was isued by the EEOC on
October 26, 2010 and that Plaintiff’s original Petition was filed thereafter on January 25, 2011.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 5.
6. With regard to Paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition, Defendants admit that jurisdiction and venue are proper in Tulsa County. Defendants, howevçr, deny any liability to Plaintiff.
7. Paragraph 7 of the Amended Petition sets forth a legal qonclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the Court deems that Paragraph 7 of the Amended Petition requires a response, Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Petition and specifically deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages whatsoever.
8. Paragraph 8 of the Amended Petition sets forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the Court deems that Paragraph 8 of the Amended Petition requires a response, Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Petition and specifically deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages whatsoever.
9. Paragraph 9 of the Amended Petition sets forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the Court deems that Paragraph 9 of the Amended Petition requires a response, Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 9 of the Amended Petition and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages whatsoever.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
10. With regard to Paragraph 10 of the Amended Petition, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning Plaintiffs age, race, and national origin, and the same are therefore denied. 2GRM admits that Plaintiff was an employee of 2GRM in the McDonald’s restaurant location at 1708 E. 1st Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, from the time 2GRM acquired the restaurant franchise location in January 2010 until Plaintiff was terminated in March 2010. 2GRM denies that Plaintiff was an employee of 2GRM for thirty-four (34) years. Gentry denies that he was Plaintiffs employer at any point in time and denies that he is an employer, as that term is defined under the Oklahoma Anti- Discrimination Act (“OADA”), or a proper defendant.
11. With regard to Paragraph 11 of the Amended Petition, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning Plaintiffs attendance record with employers prior to 2GRM becoming her employer in January 2010, and the same are therefore denied. 2GRM denies that Plaintiff performed satisfactorily while employed by 2GRM and denies that she was qualified, as she was discharged for poor performance. Gentry denies that he was ever Plaintiffs employer and denies that he is an “employer” as that term is defined under the OADA. Gentry further denies that he is a proper defendant or that he has any personal liability to Plaintiff.
12. With regard to Paragraph 12 of the Amended Petition, 2GRM admits that it began managing the McDonald’s restaurant location where Plaintiff was employed in or about January 2010. Gentry denies that he was Plaintiff’s employer and denies that he is an employer as that term is defined under the OADA. Defendants deny that Plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of her age, national origin, or race and deny any liability to Plaintiff.
13. With regard to Paragraph 13 of the Amended Petition, Defendants deny each and every allegation contained therein.
14. With regard to Paragraph 14 of the Amended Petition, Defendants deny each and every allegation contained therein.
15. With regard to Paragraph 15 of the Amended Petition, Defendants deny each and every allegation contained therein.
16. With regard to Paragraph 16 of the Amended Petition, Defendants admit that Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination against McDonalds with the OHRC on or about August 18, 2010, alleging race, age, and national origin discrimination with regard to her discharge. Defendants further admit that a Dismissal and Notice of Rights was issued by the EEOC on October 26, 2010. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding the truth of the allegations concerning when Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue, and the same are therefore denied. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Petition.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE OADA 25 O.S. § 1301 et seq
UNDER THE BURKE [sici PUBLIC POLICY TORT
17. Defendants incorporate their answers, responses and objections to Paragraphs 1
through 16 as contained herein.
18. With regard to Paragraph 18 of the Amended Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages whatsoever.
19. With regard to Paragraph 19 of the Amended Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein, deny that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff, and further deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE OADA 25O.S. § 1301 et seq
UNDER THE BURKE [sici PUBLIC POLICY TORT
20. Defendants incorporate their answers, responses, and objections to Paragraphs 1 through 19 as contained herein.
21. With regard to Paragraph 21 of the Amended Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages whatsoever.
22. With regard to Paragraph 22 of the Amended Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein, deny that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff, and further deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE OADA 25O.S. §
1301 et seq UNDER THE BURKE [sic] PUBLIC POLICY TORT
23. Defendants incorporate their answers, responses, and objections to Paragraphs 1
through 22 as contained herein.
24. With regard to Paragraph 24 of the Amended Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages whatsoever.
25. With regard to Paragraph 25 of the Amended Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein, deny that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff, and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26. Defendants incorporate their answers, responses, and objections to Paragraphs 1 through 25 as contained herein.
27. With regard to Paragraph 27 of the Amended Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein, deny any liability to Plaintiff, and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested.
28. Defendants deny each and every allegation in the Amended Petition not specifically admitted, modified, or denied herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Amended Petition fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted.
2. The decisions and conduct of 2GRM as Plaintiffs employer were justified and based on lawful and legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons, and Plaintiffs age, race, and national origin were not motivating factors in any employment action taken by 2GRM as Plaintiffs employer.
3. To the extent Plaintiff failed to comply with the enforcement provisions of the OADA, her claims are barred as untimely and/or due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
4. To the extent Plaintiff failed to satisfy all of the conditions precedent to filing suit, her claims are barred.
5. To the extent Plaintiffs Amended Petition asserts or attempts to assert claims other than those contained in her Charge of Discrimination filed with the OHRC, such claims are barred.
6. To the extent that Plaintiffs Amended Petition asserts or attempts to assert claims other than those contained in, or to name other Defendants than those identified in, Plaintiffs Charge of Discrimination filed with the EEOC, such claims are barred.
7. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations.
8. All actions taken against Plaintiff by Defendants were neither intentional, reckless, willful, nor wanton, and were made without malice or reckless disregard of any protected rights, and were consistent with business judgment.
9. Any damages suffered by Plaintiff resulted from her own conduct and were not caused by or attributable to Defendants.
10. Defendants made good faith efforts to comply with employment discrimination laws by developing and distributing employment policies and procedures that are designed to prevent and correct any alleged discrimination or retaliation in the workplace, including, but not limited to well publicized EEO policies, and, as such, Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages based on allegations of discrimination or retaliation by managerial employees of Defendants.
11. Plaintiff failed to adequately mitigate her damages.
12. Defendants are entitled to offset all of Plaintiffs interim earnings or other income against any damages recoverable by Plaintiff.
13. Defendant Micheal Gentry d/b/a McDonald’s was not Plaintiffs “employer” as that term is defined under the OADA, and, as such, Gentry is not liable to Plaintiff.
14. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
15. Plaintiff’s claims and/or damages are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of after-acquired evidence.
16. Defendants acted in good faith and with reasonable belief that they were acting in conformity with all state and federal laws.
17. Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer and assert any additional defenses upon completion of discovery.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants pray for judgment in their favor and ask that the Court dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims, with prejudice, and award Defendants their costs and attorney fees incurred in defending this action and such other and further relief, in law and in equity, to which they may be justly entitled.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: