Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 01-16-2013
Case Style: Bill Gregory v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County
Case Number: CJ-2012-1984
Judge: Daman H. Cantrell
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Douglas A. Wilson
Description: Bill Gregory sued Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County on a discrimination theory claiming:
1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of Rogers County, Oklahoma.
2 Defendant Board of County Commissioners is a governmental entity conducting regular activity in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma Defendant regularly employs more than fifteen (15) people
3. The is an action for damages and to secure protection of and to redress deprivation of rights secured by Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., hereafter “ADA.”
4. Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination against the Defendant with the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission (“OHRC”). A Notice of Right to Sue was received by Plaintiff on or about January 19, 2012, and this Petition has been filed within ninety days (90) of the receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue. As such, Plaintiff has complied fully with all prerequisites in this Court under the ADA.
5. Compensatory and punitive damages are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.
6. Jurisdiction is proper, and this action lies properly in Tulsa County as the unlawful employment practices complained of herein occurred within Tulsa County and because the Defendant conduct regular business in Tulsa County.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
7. Plaintiff, Bill Gregory, incorporate as if realleged Paragraphs 1-6.
8. Plaintiff, Bill Gregory, began his employment with Defendant as a Truck Driver in May 2008.
9. Plaintiff, Bill Gregory, suffers from a disability that affects Plaintiffs daily life activities, diabetes.
10. Beginning in June 2011, Plaintiffs supervisors, Gary Baker, Daryl Hicks, and Terry Tallen began harassing Plaintiff based upon his disability. They told him he had to wear certain shoes to work. Plaintiff informed his supervisors he was under a doctor’s care for his diabetes who had instructed him to wear diabetic shoes at work. Plaintiff ifirther submitted multiple doctor’s notes to that effect. However, Plaintiffs supervisors continued to harass him telling him that if he did not wear shoes from a certain store he would be terminated. The harassment regarding Plaintiffs shoes was consistent from June 2011 until his termination of September 1, 2011.
11. Plaintiff was told the only requirement for his work shoes was that they be OSHA approved, and Plaintiff informed Gary Baker of this fact. However, Baker instructed Plaintiff and another diabetic employee that they had to go to a certain store and buy non- diabetic shoes.
12. In early July 2011, Plaintiff submitted a letter to Tulsa County representatives complaining of the harassment and informing them he felt he was being discriminated against and harassed based upon his disability. Yet, the harassment continued after his complaint, and Plaintiff began being retaliated against for speaking out.
13. Since filing his complaint, Daryl Hicks would find Plaintiff on the job and single Mm out, asking why he was just sitting around when Hicks knows Plaintiff and the other drivers are in line to get their trucks loaded. Hicks also instructed other individuals to count Plaintiffs loads. Plaintiffs non-disabled coworkers were treated in this same manner.
14. Plaintiff is aware of other non-disabled employees who do not wear appropriate shoes and do not receive any discipline.
15. On August 9, 2011, Plaintiff submitted his general intake questionnaire to the OHRC and requested it be deemed a formal charge of discrimination.
16. On September 1, 2011, Plaintiffs employment with Defendant was terminated on the basis of his disability and in retaliation for his protected activity in lodging both a formal OHRC charge and an informal complaint with Defendant.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY (ADA
17. Plaintiffs incorporate as if realleged Paragraphs 1-16.
18. The Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 102(a) and 103(b)(5) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §121l2(a) and (b)(5).
19. Persons with a physical impairment or who are perceived to have such an impairment are persons with a disability within the meaning of Sections 3 and 102(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12102(2) and 12112(a).
20. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant.
21. Plaintiff has an impairment to his body.
22. The Plaintiff informed Defendant of his condition and the Defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodations of any kind.
23. The effect of the practices complained above has been to deprive the Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities, because of Plaintiffs disability and/or the perception of disability.
24. The unlawful employment practices complained of were and are intentional.
25. The Defendant at all relevant times have acted with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12101 etseq.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for:
a. Back pay and lost benefits; front pay;
b. Compensatory damages for mental anguish, pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary losses;
c. Punitive damages for the intentional and knowing acts of discrimination committed by the Defendant’s management and executives;
d. Equitable relief
e. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
RETALIATION (ADA)
26. Plaintiff, Bill Gregory, incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-25.
27. The Plaintiff suffered differences in treatment and was eventually terminated after he filed an informal complaint of discrimination and harassment based upon disability with Defendants and a formal complaint of the same with the OHRC.
28. By terminating Plaintiffs employment in retaliation for his participation in protected activity, Defendants have violated the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12203.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant for:
a. Back pay and lost benefits; front pay until normal retirement
b. Compensatory damages for his mental anguish, pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary losses;
c. Punitive damages for the intentional and knowing acts of discrimination committed by Defendant’s management and executives;
d. His attorney fees and the costs and expenses of this action;
e. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION (ADA)
29. Plaintiff, Bill Gregory, incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-28.
30. By continually subjecting the Plaintiff to a hostile work environment based on his disability or the perception of disability and failing to properly ensure a non-hostile work environment, Defendant has violated the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant for:
a. Back pay and lost benefits; front pay until normal retirement
b. Compensatory damages for his mental anguish, pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary losses;
c. Punitive damages for the intentional and knowing acts of discrimination committed by the Defendant’s management and executives;
d. His attorney fees and the costs and expenses of this action;
e. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
31. Plaintiff, Bill Gregory, incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-30.
32. The Defendant’s actions of intentional and malicious discrimination and harassment are extreme and outrageous and have caused severe emotional and psychological damage to the Plaintiff
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant 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 the Defendant’s 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 nonpecuniary loss, reasonable attorneys fees, injunctive relief, and all other relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
Defendant Board of County Commissioners gave notice of removal of the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on May 29, 2012.
The case was either not actually removed or was remanded by the Northern District to the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
On December 14, 2012 the Court entered a journal entry on confession of judgment in favor of the Plaintiff stating the following:
1. On October 16, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, approved the recommendation of the District Attorney of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, to confess judgment in the case herein by paying to Plaintiff, as attorney’s fees and costs, the sum of Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($42,500.00) in full settlement of this matter. This is subject to the following conditions:
a. The Defendant Board of County Commissioners is in no way admitting any liability or fault on the part of the Board or any other unnamed employees and/or agents of the BOCC. Rather, this settlement is entered into to avoid the costs of further litigation and expenses.
b. That the settlement of this case will result in a full release of any and all, past, present, or future claims against Defendant Board of County Commissioner of the County of Tulsa and/or any other unnamed employees and/or agents of the BOCC which Plaintiff Bill Gregory has or may have as a result of the incidents alleged to have occurred herein, and
c. That the settlement of this case will result in a full release of any and all, past, present, or future claims for pre-judgment interest and attorneys fees under all federal and/or state statutes and any costs associated therewith, against Defendant Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, as well as against any unnamed employees and/or agents of the BOCC, which Plaintiff Bill Gregory or his attorney Dan Smolen may have as a result of this judgment.
2. Plaintiff is fully aware of the conditions upon which this confession of judgment is made and hereby fully accepts said conditions. The Court accepts these stipulations and based upon said stipulations finds Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($42,500.00) against the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, Oklahoma, to be paid as a judgment pursuant to statutory authority.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff recover judgment against the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County in the sum of Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($42,500.00) together with applicable post-judgment interest pursuant to 12 O.S. § 727.1.
Outcome: Settled for $42,500.00 and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: