Charles Cline sued Clinical Perfusion Systems, Inc. alleging disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA), as well as age discrimination under the OADA. After Cline filed his complaint, Clinical Perfusion moved to dismiss. The district court granted Clinical Perfusion’s motion to dismiss. Cline appealed.
Factual Overview
Charles Cline, a perfusionist with twenty-five years of experience, suffered a medical emergency leading to a prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay, during which he was heavily sedated, on a ventilator, and unable to perform any functions. Following his medical emergency and during his recovery period, Clinical Perfusion Systems, Inc., where Cline was employed, terminated his employment. The termination occurred shortly after Cline was moved from the ICU to inpatient rehabilitation, a decision communicated to his wife by the company’s owners, Kevin Esau and Tyler McKeon. Cline alleged that the termination was falsely attributed to the financial condition of Clinical Perfusion Systems and that he was replaced by two younger, less qualified employees.
Legal Analysis
Disability Discrimination Claims: The court examined Cline’s disability discrimination claims under the frameworks of the Rehabilitation Act, ACA, and OADA, requiring a plaintiff to prove they can perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation. The court found that Cline did not plausibly allege a reasonable accommodation could have been made by Clinical Perfusion Systems, namely leave time during his recovery. Since Cline could not perform his job functions while sedated in the ICU and did not provide a plausible duration of leave that would be considered reasonable, the court affirmed the dismissal of his disability discrimination claims.
Age Discrimination Claim: For the age discrimination claim under the OADA, which mirrors the legal standards of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the court found that Cline had plausibly alleged age was a but-for cause of his termination. Despite the district court’s dismissal based on the reasoning that Cline’s termination was due to his disability rather than age, the appellate court disagreed. It highlighted that Cline’s allegations that his termination’s stated reason (the company’s financial condition) was false and that he was replaced with younger, less qualified individuals sufficiently supported an inference of age discrimination. Thus, the appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the age discrimination claim and remanded for further proceedings.
In conclusion, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Cline’s disability discrimination claims but reversed the dismissal of his age discrimination claim, sending it back for further legal actions.
Schrag on Law 