Plaintiff Summer Larkins sued defendant Oklahoma Department of Human Services in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma raising claims of retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and disparate treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant Oklahoma Department of Human Services moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Larkins, an African-American female, worked for the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (ODHS) as a Child Welfare Specialist II. She suffered from anxiety and depression and requested two mental health days off work from her supervisor, Jessica Flores. Flores initially approved the leave, but when Larkins returned to work, she found her time had been coded as “absent without leave.” After Larkins raised this issue with Flores, she was discharged for “no call, no show.”
Larkins alleged that a non-Black coworker, Zack Bouma, who had the same supervisor and duties, had taken time off without consequence and was treated more favorably in terms of employment privileges and conditions. Larkins initially filed a complaint alleging retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act and disparate treatment and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After procedural issues with ODHS’s first motion to dismiss, Larkins filed an amended complaint alleging retaliation under the ADA, disparate treatment under Title VII, and violation of § 1981.
Legal Analysis
Retaliation under the ADA: The court found that Larkins failed to plausibly allege that she engaged in a protected activity. The court noted that for a request for accommodation to constitute protected activity, it must be sufficiently direct and specific, giving notice that the employee needs a special accommodation for their disability. Larkins’ allegations did not suggest that her supervisor knew she was requesting time off to deal with her anxiety and depression.
Disparate Treatment under Title VII: The court determined that Larkins failed to plausibly allege that she and Bouma were similarly situated. While Larkins stated that Bouma had the same supervisor and duties, she did not provide sufficient information about their employment circumstances, work histories, or the nature of Bouma’s warnings and time off to establish that they were truly comparable.
Section 1981 Claim: The court noted that Larkins abandoned this claim by not responding to ODHS’s arguments and conceding that the claim required amendment.
The court granted ODHS’s motion to dismiss, dismissing Larkins’ amended complaint without prejudice for failure to state plausible claims for relief under the ADA and Title VII.
Schrag on Law 