Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 05-01-2023
Case Style:
Case Number: 4:21-cv-00195
Judge: Terence Kern
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Erica Anne Dowart
Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a job discrimination theory under 42 U.S.C. 2000e.
This case arose from the termination of Plaintiff's employment as a Special Assets Manager III in Defendant's Special Assets Division (SAD). On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff received notice that her position was being eliminated due to reorganization of Defendant's credit administration department, following its June 2018 merger with CoBiz Financial (CoBiz). Plaintiff maintains that the reduction in force was merely pretext, alleging that Defendant was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII). To that end, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for disparate treatment based on gender under Title VII, for retaliation, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
According to the court, the record reflects that the first year of Plaintiff's employment was relatively positive, if unremarkable. That appears to have changed, however, around February 2018, when Ernst had become angered after a disagreement with Plaintiff regarding a “loan workout” that Plaintiff was attempting to complete. (Doc. 37-16 at 4). Matters escalated even further in April 2018, when BOKF Chief Credit Officer (CCO) and Ernst's supervisor, Marc Maun (Maun), spoke directly to Plaintiff about a work matter, rather than going through Ernst-as would be the customary chain
of communication. (Id.) Plaintiff states that Ernst construed Plaintiff's conversation with Maun to be evidence of Plaintiff going behind Ernst's back. (Id.) From that point on, Plaintiff alleges that Ernst began excluding her from vital meetings and failed to communicate with her about important work topics. (Id.)...
Outcome: Plaintiff has conceded that her IIED claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and thus, that claim must be dismissed. Additionally, because Plaintiff has failed to establish her prima facie case with respect to her Title VII claims of discrimination and retaliation, those claims must also be dismissed. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) is GRANTED, and final judgment terminating the case shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
05/09/2023 80 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court (paid $505 appeal fee; receipt number AOKNDC-2807850) (Re: 79 Judgment, Entering Judgment, 78 Opinion and Order, Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment ) by Brynna Schelbar Phillips (Smith, Mark) (Entered: 05/09/2023)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: