Howard Nelson sued Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, raising claims of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and retaliatory discharge under Oklahoma law. Before the court is SWBT’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
SWBT hired Nelson in 1999 as a customer service technician in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In 2010, Nelson was injured on the job, filed a workers’ compensation claim, and received disability benefits until 2018. In 2016, Nelson’s physician issued permanent work restrictions that prevented him from performing his technician job duties. SWBT offered Nelson a 90-day period to search for alternative positions within the company that could accommodate his restrictions. Nelson applied for a customer service representative position in sales but failed to meet the required score on a customer experience assessment. After Nelson did not secure a new job during the 90-day window, SWBT terminated his employment effective December 2, 2016. Nelson had not performed any work for SWBT since November 2010 and has been unable to work at all since his termination due to his disability.
Legal Analysis
ADA Discrimination:The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to analyze Nelson’s ADA claim. The court found that Nelson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he could not demonstrate that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of either his original technician job or the sales representative position he applied for. The court determined that SWBT’s assessment criteria for the sales position were job-related and consistent with business necessity.
ADEA Disparate Impact and Termination: The court noted that Nelson did not respond to SWBT’s arguments regarding the ADEA claim in his response brief. Nevertheless, the court examined the record and found that Nelson failed to provide any statistical evidence to support a disparate impact claim. Additionally, the court determined that Nelson could not establish that he was qualified for either his previous job or the desired sales position, which is a necessary element of an ADEA termination claim.
Oklahoma Retaliatory Discharge: The court analyzed Nelson’s claim under Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation retaliation law. The court found that Nelson failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a legal inference that his termination was significantly motivated by retaliation for exercising his statutory rights. The court determined that the email evidence cited by Nelson did not demonstrate that his workers’ compensation claim was a significant motivating factor in his discharge.
The court granted SWBT’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.
Schrag on Law 