In Sondia Bell vs. City of Tulsa, plaintiff Sondia Bell sued the City of Tulsa, claiming race-based discrimination, retaliation for opposing employment practices, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) related to adverse employment actions because of her relationship with her son. In a substantial 133-page order, the district court granted the City of Tulsa summary judgment.
Factual Background
Background: Sondia Bell, an African-American woman, was hired by the City of Tulsa in 2014 and later promoted within the Information Technology (IT) department. Her employment was terminated on December 3, 2020. The case discusses various aspects of her employment, including her qualifications, the responsibilities of her role, and the structure of the IT department where she worked.
S. Bell’s First Work-From-Home Request: In January 2019, Bell formally requested to work from home to care for her son, who was on bed-rest. Despite previous inquiries and formal requests, her supervisor, Chris Berg, and the City of Tulsa denied her requests based on department policy, emphasizing the necessity for all team members to be on-site. Bell’s requests for accommodations under the ADA for her autistic child were also denied.
S. Bell’s 2019 Behavior at Work and Failures to Request Authorization to Change Her Work Schedule: After returning from maternity leave in July 2019, Bell began bringing her children to work and working unusual hours without approval, actions that violated City of Tulsa policy. Despite a history of approved flex-time requests, her unauthorized work hours led to disciplinary meetings and eventually to her being escorted out of the building by security for refusing to leave when instructed.
The Incident Concerning S. Bell’s Use of Caughron’s Bathroom: The conflict began when S. Bell frequently used a private bathroom in a coworker’s office rather than the public one, which led to tensions and a directive for the coworker to lock their office, exacerbating the dispute between Bell and her supervisors.
S. Bell’s First Pretermination Hearing and Suspension: Bell faced a pretermination hearing addressing her unauthorized flex time usage, making false statements, and obstructing the HR investigation into the bathroom dispute. This resulted in a five-day suspension without pay, while her coworker involved in the dispute was not disciplined.
Issues Related to S. Bell’s Insurance Coverage: In 2019, Bell enrolled in health insurance for 2020, but her coverage was terminated at the year’s end, affecting 32 City of Tulsa employees. Despite re-enrollment and coverage reinstatement in January 2020, there was a delay before the insurance became active, leading to a temporary lack of therapy for Bell’s son.
The IT Department’s Telecommuting Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic: During the pandemic, telecommuting was allowed temporarily for safety reasons. Two IT department employees, different from Bell, were allowed to telecommute due to their unique work circumstances, highlighting the department’s varying telecommuting approvals.
S. Bell’s Second Request to Work from Home and Subsequent Behavior Change: After the initial COVID-19 telecommuting period, S. Bell requested to work from home a second time in June 2020, which was denied. Other departments were allowed remote work, but her section continued in-person work. Post-denial, a noted change in S. Bell’s behavior towards coworkers was observed.
S. Bell’s Actions Upon Return from First Suspension and the Second Pretermination Hearing: Upon returning from a five-day suspension, S. Bell was given a letter outlining work expectations. In June 2020, she reported late to work and refused to leave at the designated time, leading to another pretermination hearing in August 2020, which resulted in a ten-day suspension.
S. Bell’s FMLA Request: In July 2020, S. Bell requested expanded FMLA leave due to school closures related to COVID-19. The request led to several clarifications and verifications from HR, with S. Bell expressing frustration over the process in a recorded call.
S. Bell’s Third Pretermination Hearing and Termination: In November 2020, S. Bell was notified of a third pretermination hearing, which led to a recommendation for her termination based on “continued unprofessional behavior and her disrespectful, condescending, and threatening actions.” Her employment was terminated in December 2020, a decision upheld by the Civil Service Commission in February 2021.
Legal Analysis
Sham Affidavit – Bell Declaration: The court first addresses the issue of the Bell Declaration (Bell Decl.), which the City of Tulsa argues should be considered only to the extent it does not contradict S. Bell’s deposition (Bell Depo.). The court established a principle to disregard any affidavit or declaration that directly contradicts prior sworn testimony to prevent the creation of sham fact issues. Applying three factors—cross-examination during earlier testimony, access to pertinent evidence at the time of earlier testimony, and whether earlier testimony reflects confusion the affidavit attempts to explain—the court finds that the Bell Decl. might create a sham fact issue. That said, the court did not identify specific instances where S. Bell attempted to create such an issue through her declaration. Therefore, while the court decided not to rely on the Bell Decl. in instances where it contradicts the Bell Depo., it did not disregard the entire declaration.
Race Discrimination: The City of Tulsa argued it did not discriminate against S. Bell based on race, according to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court found that although S. Bell established a prima facie case of discrimination, the City of Tulsa provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for disciplining and terminating her employment. These reasons included her poor performance, attendance issues, violations of company policy, and attitude problems. S. Bell failed to show that these reasons were pretextual. Thus, the court granted summary judgment for the City of Tulsa on S. Bell’s discrimination claims.
Retaliation: The court then addressed the claim of retaliation, where S. Bell needed to show engagement in protected activity, suffering an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two. While S. Bell managed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation regarding her termination due to the proximity in time between her complaint and the adverse action, the City of Tulsa provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her suspensions and termination. These included unprofessional behavior and insubordination, which were well-documented through progressive disciplinary actions.
The timing between S. Bell’s complaints and the disciplinary actions alone could not prove causation or to establish that the City of Tulsa’s reasons were pretextual. The court concluded that S. Bell had not demonstrated that the City of Tulsa’s rationale for firing her was pretextual, indicating that the City had acted within its rights and policies in taking adverse employment actions against her.
ADA Association Discrimination: The court delved into the intricacies of association discrimination under the ADA, analyzing whether S. Bell’s termination was unlawfully influenced by her relationship with her disabled son. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework to evaluate S. Bell’s claim, requiring her to establish a prima facie case that her termination was motivated by discriminatory factors related to her son’s disability.
S. Bell successfully demonstrated the initial elements of her prima facie case, showing she was qualified for her position, suffered adverse employment actions, and that the City of Tulsa was aware of her son’s disability. The crux of her claim hinged on proving that her association with her disabled son was a determining factor in the adverse employment actions taken against her.
The court examined two potential bases for association discrimination claims: “distraction” and “expense”. The “distraction” argument posits that an employee’s attentiveness at work is compromised due to the demands of caring for a disabled family member. The “expense” argument suggests that the employee’s association with a disabled person imposes financial burdens on the employer, motivating adverse employment actions.
S. Bell attempted to argue that her termination was linked to the perceived distraction and expense of caring for her son, citing temporal proximity between her FMLA-related communications with the City and her termination, among other factors. Yet the court found her evidence insufficient to support a reasonable inference of discrimination. It concluded that S. Bell’s termination was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons related to her professional conduct and adherence to workplace policies, rather than her association with her disabled son. Ultimately, the court determined that S. Bell failed to show that any of the City of Tulsa’s stated reasons for her termination were pretextual. It held that the City provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for S. Bell’s termination, unrelated to her association with her disabled son. As a result, the court granted the City of Tulsa’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing S. Bell’s ADA association discrimination claim.
Schrag on Law 