Plaintiff Ronald Spears sued defendants Okmulgee County Criminal Justice Authority and Okmulgee County Board of Commissioners in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Jackson issued a report and recommendation on September 20, 2023. Defendants objected to the report and recommendation, contending that Magistrate Judge Jackson erred in not recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim.
Factual Overview
Spears, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2016, worked for the defendants for thirteen years. His cancer treatment required time off from work and changes to his schedule, which he was granted under the previous administration. When a new director implemented a policy prohibiting employees from taking time off for medical reasons or working from home, Spears was terminated on July 23, 2020, without any reason provided. Spears alleges that his termination was due to his previously approved accommodations no longer being in line with the new policy.
Legal Analysis
ADA Failure to Accommodate Claim: The magistrate judge found that Spears plausibly alleged an ADA failure to accommodate claim, as the new policy effectively withdrew his previously granted accommodation. The Article III judge agreed, overruling the defendants’ objections and adopting the magistrate’s recommendation.
ADA Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Claims: The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Spears’ ADA disability discrimination and retaliation claims, as he failed to allege sufficient facts to support a causal connection between his disability or protected activity and his termination. However, the magistrate judge recommended granting Spears leave to amend these claims.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Equal Protection Claim: The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Spears’ equal protection claim, as he failed to allege facts showing that the defendants enacted the new policy to intentionally discriminate against him or others with disabilities. The magistrate judge found that there was a rational basis for the policy and recommended dismissing this claim with prejudice.
Abandoned Claims: The magistrate judge noted that Spears abandoned his Title VII and Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act claims by not addressing them in his response to the motion to dismiss.
The court ultimately adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation in full, dismissing Spears’ ADA disability discrimination, ADA retaliation, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 equal protection, Title VII, and Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act claims, while allowing his ADA failure to accommodate claim to proceed.
Schrag on Law 