Plaintiff Allison B. Brown sued Defendants Dynamic Gaming Solutions, LLC, Mark Larson, and Travis Skaggs in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, raising claims of retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), wrongful discharge under Oklahoma law, and tortious interference with employment relationships. Before the court is Plaintiff Brown’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Brown worked for Dynamic Gaming Solutions, LLC from September 28, 2020, to September 28, 2021. In mid-September 2021, Brown was informed of a promotion and pay raise. On September 27, 2021, Brown complained to her supervisors that she was misclassified as an exempt employee under the FLSA and should receive overtime pay. She also raised concerns about Dynamic’s compliance with Oklahoma tax laws. The following day, on September 28, 2021, Brown was informed by Travis Skaggs that her employment with Dynamic had been terminated.
Evidentiary Disputes: Defendants attempted to dispute several facts by asserting an evidentiary objection based on the inability to authenticate documents and conversations involving a deceased individual, Neal Remmers. The court found that Defendants did not satisfy the means of challenging Plaintiff’s facts or materials under Rule 56(c) in part because they were challenging their own document production.
Legal Analysis
FLSA Retaliation Claim: The court found that the undisputed facts showed Brown’s FLSA complaint was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment. The court further found that Brown presented direct evidence of retaliation; statements of a person involved in Brown’s termination established a direct link between the termination decision and Brown’s complaint of an FLSA violation. However, the facts also showed that the termination decision was based on Brown’s complaint about alleged state tax law violations. The court determined that reasonable jurors could reach different conclusions on whether Brown’s FLSA protected activity was the motivating factor under the but-for standard. Additionally, Brown did not address the issue of each defendant’s individual liability for FLSA retaliation.
Burk Wrongful Discharge Claim: The court found that Brown failed to establish as a matter of law that she engaged in protected activity under Oklahoma’s Burk public policy exception to at-will employment. Brown did not adequately explain how her complaints about Dynamic’s nonpayment of taxes implicated a clear and compelling public policy recognized by Oklahoma law.
Tortious Interference Claims: The court determined that without a finding that Brown was terminated for unlawful reasons, it could not conclude that Larson or Skaggs committed tortious interference. Moreover, the court was not convinced that Brown correctly stated Oklahoma law regarding tortious interference claims against managerial employees in wrongful discharge cases.
The court denied Brown’s motion for partial summary judgment on all claims addressed in her motion.
Schrag on Law 