Date: 06-30-2015

Case Style: Danielle Deaton v. Whataburger, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2015-1063

Judge: Daman H. Cantrell

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Hans Lehr

Defendant's Attorney: Robert Winter and Lauren Pierce

Description: Tulsa, OK - Danielle Deaton sued Whataburger, Inc. on a wrongful termination theory claiming:

1 Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma
2 Defendant Whataburger, Inc , is a foreign for profit business corporation reu1ar1y
conductmg busmess m Tulsa County, Oklahoma
3. The events and occurrences that gives rise to this cause of action occurred in
Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
4. This court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
STATEMENT OF TUE FACTS
5. Paragraphs 1 through 4 are incorporated herein by reference.
6. Plaintiff sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her
employment on or about February 8, 2013, while employed by defendant.
7. Plaintiff notified her supervisor of this injury.
8. Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier.
9. Plaintiff’s claim was then pursued in the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation
Court.
10. Plaintiff was subsequently terminated from her employment with Defendant on or
about May 15, 2013, while still receiving medical treatment as a result of her work
related injury.
COUNT I: RETALIATORY DISCHARGE
11. Paragraphs 1 through 10 are incorporated herein by reference.
12. On or about February 8, 2013, Plaintiff sustained an accidental injury arising out
of and in the course of her employment while working for defendant.
13. Defendant subsequently terminated plaintiff for exercising the rights afforded
under the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act, 85 O.S. § 301 et seq.
14. The termination of plaintiff was in direct violation of Oklahoma Law. More
specifically, said policy and act termination violates the Oklahoma Worker’s
Compensation Act, 85 O.S. § 341.
15. As a result of this wrongful termination, Plaintiff has suffered consideration
damages including, but not limited to, lost wages and other actual damages in excess of
$75,000.00.
COuNT II: PUNITIVE DAMAGES
16. Paragraphs 1 though 15 are incorporated herein by reference.
17. Defendant acted in reckless disregard of the rights afforded to plaintiff, and all employees of the company, under Oklahoma Law. Furthermore, Defendant intentionally and maliciously enacted and implemented an employment policy in clear violation of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act when it terminated Plaintiff for exercising her rights.
18. Defendant conducted his behavior with full knowledge of the severe and adverse consequences such actions would have upon plaintiff and all other persons Defendant employed.
19. Such a policy was not detrimental to Plaintiff, but is detrimental to the public in general, and punitive damages are appropriate under 85 O.S. § 341.

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: