Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) SATERA WASHINGTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) ) (2) UHS OKLAHOMA CITY LLC ) d/b/a CEDAR RIDGE, ) ) Defendant. ) CIV-11-101-L PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, SATERA WASHINGTON, files this action against Defendant, UHS OKLAHOMA CITY LLC d/b/a CEDAR RIDGE, and by way of complaint against Defendant alleges the following: I. Nature of Action 1.1 This jury action seeks redress for Defendant s violation of the laws in connection with the termination of Plaintiff s employment. The action specifically seeks to enforce rights created under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( ADA ) 42 U.S.C. 12101 et. seq., the Family and Medical Leave Act ( FMLA ) 29 U.S.C. 2601 et. seq., and Oklahoma common law. As redress for Defendant s violation of the ADA, Plaintiff prays for and demands declaratory, legal and equitable relief, including back pay, reinstatement or, in the alternative, front pay, punitive damages, damages for emotional distress and attorney fees and costs. As redress for Defendant s violation of the FMLA, Plaintiff prays for and demands declaratory, equitable and legal relief, including 1
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 2 of 19 compensatory damages, liquidated damages and attorney fees and costs. As redress for Defendant s violation of Oklahoma common law Plaintiff prays for and demands legal and equitable relief, including back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees and costs. II. Jurisdiction and Venue 2.1 This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff s FMLA claim brought under federal law and this suit is authorized and instituted pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 2617(a)(2). Jurisdiction of Plaintiff s ADA claim is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12117 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5. 2.2 At all times material to this action, Plaintiff was an employee who had been employed for at least 12 months by Defendant and worked for at least 1,250 hours of service with Defendant during the previous 12 month period within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 2611(2)(A). 2.3 Venue is proper in this Court over Plaintiff s ERISA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(e)(2). 2.4 Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred within the judicial district of this Court, and because Defendant resides within the judicial district of this Court. 2.5 Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant, and Defendant was the employer of Plaintiff, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 2611 (2)(A) and (4)(A) of the FMLA. 2
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 3 of 19 2.6 At all relevant times, Defendant has continually been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12111(5) and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12111(7). 2.7 At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12111(2). 2.8 All conditions precedent to Plaintiff's entitlement to relief in this action have been fulfilled and satisfied. On or about June 3, 2009 Plaintiff filed a charge of disability discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After investigation, the EEOC issued a Cause Determination, dated November 14, 2010, finding disability discrimination. After conciliation failed, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue dated November 8, 2010 and this suit is instituted within the 90-day deadline contained within the notice. 2.9 This Court has pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims as the claim arose under the same set of facts as the federal statutory claims. III. Parties 3.1 Plaintiff is a female citizen of the United States and a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 3.2 Defendant is a domestic limited liability corporation registered to do business in the State of Oklahoma Process may be served upon its duly authorized agent: The Corporation Company, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 735, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. 3
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 4 of 19 IV. Background Facts 4.1 On or about July 2006 Defendant hired Plaintiff to work at the position of Registered Nurse. She was later promoted to Campus Supervisor. She had always met or exceeded her performance standards. Torn ACL of Knee 4.2 On or about July 23, 2008, Plaintiff sustained a non-occupational injury at her knee and ankle. She was ultimately diagnosed with a torn anterior cruciate ligament of the knee and a fracture of the leg. 4.3 Plaintiff returned to work on or about August 5, 2008 with limited duties and schedule. She was using crutches with physician restrictions and worked a reduced schedule. FMLA Leave Request 4.4 Upon her return she obtained FMLA certification forms from Human Resources. Plaintiff returned the completed FMLA certificates approving her for FMLA leave from her physician to Human Resources a few days later. Plaintiff sought FMLA leave to cover additional absences for treatment of her knee, including surgery and postoperative rehabilitation. 4.5 After receiving the completed FMLA certificates, Defendant never notified Plaintiff of approval or denial of her FMLA request. Thereafter, Plaintiff continued to work limited duties and part-time. 4
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 5 of 19 4.6 On or about October 31, 2008 Plaintiff delivered to Human Resources a notification from her physician advising Defendant of removal from work effective November 1, 2008 and reconstructive knee surgery scheduled for November 13, 2008. 4.7 After receiving the physician s note, Defendant never notified Plaintiff of acceptance or denial of her request. Beginning November 1, 2008 Plaintiff did not return to work based upon her physician s orders. 4.8 On November 13, 2008 Plaintiff underwent reconstructive knee surgery and thereafter a regimen of post-operative rehabilitation. Return to Work Denied 4.9 Plaintiff s physician released Plaintiff to return to work with physical restrictions effective on or about January 8, 2009. Plaintiff delivered the release to Rose Adams, Human Resources. After no response, Plaintiff made inquiries with HR for permission to return to work. Ms. Adams ultimately refused to permit Plaintiff s return to work due to the physical restrictions. 4.10 Plaintiff filed for unemployment benefits with the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. In January, 2009, in response, Defendant sent a letter to the OESC stating Plaintiff was employed at least six months or until released to work by her physician. 4.11 On or about February 9, 2009 Plaintiff delivered to Ms. Adams another work release from her physician permitting full-time status with reduced physical restrictions. In response, Ms. Adams gave to Plaintiff a job description for the position 5
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 6 of 19 of Campus Supervisor to be reviewed by her physician with the representation that Plaintiff would fill the position if her physician authorized her return to the position. 4.12 Plaintiff met with her physician. At this visit, her physician reviewed the job duties of the position and issued a (third) work release dated February 24, 2009 permitting Plaintiff to work the position of Campus Supervisor and removed all physical restrictions 4.13 Plaintiff delivered the release to Ms. Adams approving her for the position of Campus Supervisor. 4.14 Defendant never interviewed Plaintiff for the Campus Supervisor position nor permitted her to fill the position. Plaintiff also applied for various nurse positions within the facility. Defendant never offered her any positions she previously applied for or which became vacant before and after her termination. Denied Other Positions 4.15 Defendant never permitted Plaintiff s return to her former position, the Campus Supervisor position or any vacant positions after her termination. 4.16 On or about March 30, 2009 Plaintiff applied for a nurse manager position with Defendant. Defendant never communicated with her regarding acceptance or rejection for the position. Full Duty Release and Termination 4.17 On April 9, 2009 her physician released her back to work, like before, full duty without any restrictions. Plaintiff delivered the full duty release to Rita Huntsman, HR. 6
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 7 of 19 4.18 Defendant terminated Plaintiff s employment by a letter to her house effective April 22, 2009. The letter purports to advise Plaintiff of prior exhaustion of FMLA leave the first time Defendant advised Plaintiff of FMLA leave approval from her August 2008. Attached to the letter of termination was a notice of her rejection for the Nurse Manager position. 4.19 Based upon information and belief, at her termination, Plaintiff had a balance of unused paid time off of 21 hours. At her termination, Plaintiff was not under any physical restrictions. EEOC CAUSE DETERMINATION 4.20 Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC investigated and entered a Determination finding disability discrimination in her termination. DOL Complaint 4.21 In March 2010 Plaintiff filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor alleging violations of the FMLA by Defendant. 4.22 Defendant has not offered to rehire Plaintiff to her former position or to fill any vacant positions since her DOL complaint. COUNT I: ADA 5.1 Plaintiff incorporates and realleges, in full, paragraphs 1.1 through 4.22 of this Original Complaint. 5.2 Plaintiff had a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 12102.(2)(A) and/or Plaintiff was regarded as having such an impairment by Defendant within the 7
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 8 of 19 meaning of 42 U.S.C. 12102.(2)(C) and/or Plaintiff has a record of such an impairment within the meaning of (2)(B). 5.3 Defendant willfully, knowingly, and intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of a disability in the terms or conditions of her employment, and/or otherwise failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff s disability, by engaging in the following conduct: (a) by refusing permission to return to work after a release by her physician; (b) failing to interact with Plaintiff in good faith to find Plaintiff reasonable accommodations and return to work; (c) by conditioning her return to work on a release from her physician then refusing to permit her return to work; (d) by failing and refusing to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff with a medical leave of absence and/or light duty positions; (e) by refusing to transfer or hire Plaintiff for other positions available and for positions Plaintiff applied and (f) by terminating Plaintiff s employment. By engaging in such conduct, Defendant violated 12112(a), which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any person with respect to hiring, discharge and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment because of a disability or being regarded as disabled. 5.4 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s violation of the ADA, Plaintiff has been damaged by the loss of her employment with Defendant and the loss of compensation, including salary and employee benefits, she would have received as an employee of Defendant had she not been discharged in violation of the ADA. 8
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 9 of 19 5.5 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s actions as alleged under this Count, Plaintiff has suffered nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. 5.6 Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein with malice and reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff. 5.7 As a direct and proximate cause of the violations of the ADA as alleged under this Count, Plaintiff has also suffered other pecuniary losses, the type and amount of which will be established at the trial of this cause. Count II: ADA Retaliation 6.1 Plaintiff incorporates and realleges, in full, paragraphs 1.1 through 5.7 of this Original Complaint. 6.2 Defendant willfully, knowingly, and intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff for requesting a medical leave of absence as an accommodation in the terms or conditions of her employment, by engaging in the following conduct: (a) by failing and refusing to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff with a medical leave of absence and/or light duty positions; (b) by terminating Plaintiff s employment for taking a medical leave of absence; (c) by refusing permission to return to work after a release by her physician; (d) failing to interact with Plaintiff in good faith to find Plaintiff reasonable accommodations and return to work; (e) by conditioning her return to work on a release from her physician then refusing to permit her return to work; (f) by refusing to transfer or hire Plaintiff for other positions available and for positions Plaintiff applied and (g) by terminating Plaintiff s employment. By engaging in such conduct, Defendant violated 12112(a), 9
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 10 of 19 which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any person with respect to hiring, discharge and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment because of a disability or being regarded as disabled. 6.3 Plaintiff s request for reasonable accommodations was a motivating factor in the discharge of her employment. Defendant willfully, knowingly and intentionally retaliated or discriminated against Plaintiff for requesting an accommodation to her disability in her termination of employment. 6.4 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s violation of the ADA, Plaintiff has been damaged by the loss of her employment with Defendant and the loss of compensation, including salary and employee benefits, she would have received as an employee of Defendant had she not been terminated in violation of the ADA. 6.5 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s actions as alleged under this Count, Plaintiff has suffered nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. 6.6 Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein with malice and reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff. 6.7 As a direct and proximate cause of the violations of the ADA as alleged under this Count, Plaintiff has also suffered other pecuniary losses, the type and amount of which will be established at the trial of this cause. 10
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 11 of 19 COUNT III: FMLA (Interference, Restraint or Denial of FMLA rights) (Retaliation for Requesting FMLA leave) 7.1 Plaintiff incorporates and realleges, in full, paragraphs 1.1 through 6.7 of this Original Complaint. 7.2 Plaintiff worked for Defendant at least twelve months and Defendant has continuously employed and does employ fifty or more employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 2611(2). 7.3 All conditions precedent to the prosecution of this cause of action by Plaintiff have been satisfied. 7.4 At all times material to this action, Defendant has retaliated and/or interfered with, restrained, and denied to Plaintiff the exercise of and attempted exercise of rights under Section 2615(a)(1) of the FMLA by terminating Plaintiff s employment while on FMLA leave and failing to rehire or reinstate Plaintiff after her FMLA leave. 7.5 At all times material to this action, Defendant has retaliated and/or interfered with, restrained, and denied to Plaintiff the exercise of and attempted exercise of rights under Section 2615(a)(1) of the FMLA by Defendant s action and omissions including but not limited to the following: a. Failing to notify Plaintiff of decision to designate her leave under FMLA leave, full or intermittent, after receiving sufficient information from Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff s physician of FMLA-qualifying reasons. 29 C.F.R. 825.301 (a) 11
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 12 of 19 b. Failing to notify Plaintiff of eligibility for FMLA leave within 5 days after Plaintiff s request. 29 C.F.R. 825.300 (b) & (d)(2) c. Failing to provide notice to Plaintiff of the amount of leave counted against Plaintiff s FMLA leave entitlement then terminating after 12 weeks even though Plaintiff had a fully duty release from her physician. 29 C.F.R. 825.300 (d)(6) d. Retroactively designating leave as FMLA without justification or appropriate notice. 29 C.F.R. 825.301 (d) e. Refusing to permit Plaintiff to work after submitting a fitness for duty certificate requested by Defendant. 29 C.F.R. 825.312 (d) f. Terminating Plaintiff s employment during FMLA qualified leave and by failing to rehire or reinstate Plaintiff to her position with all benefits upon her return to work after her FMLA leave of absence. 7.6 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s violation of the FMLA, Plaintiff has been damaged by the loss of her employment with Defendant and the loss of compensation, including salary and employee benefits, she would have received as an employee of Defendant had her rights under the FMLA not been interfered, restrained or denied or been retaliated for her attempted exercise of FMLA rights. 7.7 In violating the FMLA, Defendant acted with malice and with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 2617 (a)(1)(a)(iii) of the FMLA. 12
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 13 of 19 7.8 As a direct and proximate cause of the violations of the FMLA as alleged under this Count, Plaintiff has also suffered other pecuniary losses, the type and amount of which will be established at the trial of this cause. COUNT IV: BREACH OF CONTRACT/PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 8.1 Plaintiff incorporates and realleges, in full, paragraphs 1.1 through 7.8 of this Original Complaint. 8.2 A contract of employment existed between Plaintiff and Defendant consisting of a verbal and/or written promise by Defendant to permit Plaintiff to fill the position of Campus Supervisor if approved by her physician after examining the position s job description. 8.3 Defendant made these representations with the expectation that such promises would induce Plaintiff to meet with her physician, obtain his opinion and submit her request for the position of Campus Supervisor with supporting physician paperwork. 8.4 In material reliance upon these representations, Plaintiff did meet the conditions for permitting her to work the position of Campus Supervisor imposed by Defendant. Plaintiff would not have foregone looking or applying for other positions, meeting with her physician and submitting her request for the position but for Defendant s representations. 8.5 Defendant then terminated the employment of Plaintiff for being medically unable to work at Defendant. 8.6 By terminating Plaintiff s employment Defendant breached the contract between the parties. 13
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 14 of 19 8.7 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged by the loss of her employment with Defendant and the loss of compensation, including salary and employee benefits, she would have received as an employee of Defendant had she not been terminated. 8.8 Defendant acted willfully, maliciously, grossly and/or recklessly such that punitive damages should be awarded. 8.9 As a direct and proximate result cause of Defendant s unlawful conduct as alleged under this Count, Plaintiff has also suffered other pecuniary losses, the type and amount of which will be established at the trial of this cause. Count V: Fraudulent Misrepresentation 9.1 Plaintiff incorporates and realleges, in full, paragraphs 1.1 through 8.9 of this Complaint. 9.2 Defendant made representations to Plaintiff that she could fill the position of Campus Supervisor if approved by her physician after examining the position s job description. 9.3 Defendant made these representations with the expectation that such promises would induce Plaintiff to meet with her physician, obtain his opinion and submit her request for the position of Campus Supervisor with supporting physician paperwork. 9.4 In material reliance upon these representations, Plaintiff did meet the conditions for permitting her to work the position of Campus Supervisor imposed by Defendant. Plaintiff would not have foregone looking or applying for other positions, 14
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 15 of 19 meeting with her physician and submitting her request for the position but for Defendant s representations. 9.5 Defendant then terminated the employment of Plaintiff for being medically unable to work at Defendant. 9.6 After promising Plaintiff the position if she met the conditions, Defendant never had any intention of keeping its promise of permitting Plaintiff to work the position of Campus Supervisor. Defendant thus knew these representations to be false when made. 9.7 Defendant made these fraudulent misrepresentations intentionally and with the expectation that such misrepresentations would induce Plaintiff to meet with her physician and submit medical approval for the position. 9.8 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged by the loss of her employment with Defendant and the loss of compensation, including salary and employee benefits, she would have received as an employee of Defendant had she not been terminated. 9.9 Defendant acted willfully, maliciously, grossly and/or recklessly such that punitive damages should be awarded. 9.10 As a direct and proximate result cause of Defendant s unlawful conduct as alleged under this Count, Plaintiff has also suffered other pecuniary losses, the type and amount of which will be established at the trial of this cause. COUNT VI: Public Policy Exception 10.1 Plaintiff incorporates and realleges, in full, paragraphs 4.1 through 9.10 of this Original Complaint. 15
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 16 of 19 10.2 Oklahoma law provides under the Oklahoma Anti-discrimination Act, 25 O.S. Section 1302 that an employer shall not discriminate against an employee because of handicap. 10.3 Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based upon her disability or in retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodations in her termination. 10.4 By terminating Plaintiff s employment, Defendant violated the Oklahoma public policy prohibiting handicap discrimination and retaliation for requesting accommodations. Defendant willfully, knowingly and intentionally discriminated and/or retaliated against Plaintiff in her termination. 10.5 As a direct and proximate result of the violation of Oklahoma public policy, Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant s discrimination and/or retaliation in loss of compensation, including wages, employee benefits, opportunities for promotion and advancement and other pecuniary benefits she would have received as an employee at Defendant after her termination of employment. 10.6 In wrongfully discharging Plaintiff, Defendant also acted with malice. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages. 10.7 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s violation of the Oklahoma public policy, Plaintiff has suffered other pecuniary losses, the type and amount of which will be established at trial. 10.8 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s violation of the Oklahoma public policy, Plaintiff has suffered nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. 16
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 17 of 19 Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays that this Court: 1. A judgment that Defendant has engaged in all of the conduct alleged in this Original Complaint, and that Defendant has, by engaging in such conduct, violated the FMLA, ADA, and Oklahoma common law. 2. An injunction permanently enjoining Defendant from engaging in the future the discriminatory employment practices alleged in this Original Complaint. 3. A judgment against Defendant awarding Plaintiff an amount equal to the lost wages and employment benefits had she not been terminated by Defendant in violation of the FMLA, ADA, and Oklahoma common law. 4. An order reinstating Plaintiff to the position, seniority and level of compensation, including salary, bonuses and benefits, she would have enjoyed had she not been terminated by Defendant in violation of the FMLA, ADA, and Oklahoma common law, or, in the alternative, a judgment awarding Plaintiff an amount equal to the front pay, including salary, bonuses and benefits, she would have received, from the date of judgment through the date she would have retired or resigned from employment at Defendant. 5. Enter an equivalent money judgment awarding Plaintiff liquidated damages, as provided in 29 U.S.C. 2617 (a)(1)(a)(iii); 6. A judgment against Defendant awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages as redress for Defendant s unlawful conduct under the ADA, FMLA and Oklahoma common law. 17
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 18 of 19 7. A judgment against Defendant awarding Plaintiff exemplary damages to punish and make an example of Defendant for their unlawful conduct. 8. A judgment against Defendant awarding Plaintiff compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. 9. A judgment against Defendant awarding Plaintiff an amount equal to the costs of bringing this action, including a reasonable attorney fee. 10. A judgment awarding Plaintiff such other legal and equitable relief as may be appropriate, including prejudgment and postjudgment interest. Respectfully submitted, S/Jeff Taylor Jeff A. Taylor State Bar No. 17210 5613 N. Classen Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 286-1600 Facsimile: (405) 842-6132 Email: jeffataylor@att.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 18
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 19 of 19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a jury trial of all of her claims in this action. s/ Jeff A. Taylor Jeff A. Taylor 19
Case 5:11-cv-00101-L Document 1-1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 1