Plaintiffs Rachel Theron and Misty Schweitzer sued defendants Canadian County ex rel. Board of County Commissioners (“the Board”), Judge Bobby Hughey, Melanie Johnson, and Cedric Mills in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, raising claims of age discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and violation of their First Amendment rights. The Board moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Plaintiffs were employed by Canadian County, Oklahoma and worked at the Gary E. Miller Canadian County Children’s Justice Center (CCCJC). Theron was hired as an Accounting Specialist in October 2021 and terminated in March 2022. Schweitzer was employed as a Human Resource Manager from October 2020 until her termination on March 25, 2022.
Plaintiffs allege they were subjected to discrimination and retaliation. Theron claims she was terminated due to her age and in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. Schweitzer alleges she was terminated due to her disability and for acting as a witness to Theron’s EEOC complaint. Both plaintiffs also claim they were retaliated against for reporting improper practices at CCCJC.
Theron additionally alleges she was required to work overtime without proper compensation. Both plaintiffs assert their First Amendment rights were violated when they spoke out about problems at CCCJC, including financial mismanagement and violations of spending laws.
Legal Analysis
Age Discrimination
The court found that Theron adequately pleaded her age discrimination claims under both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA). The court determined Theron sufficiently alleged she was qualified for her position and that age was the but-for cause of her termination.
Disability Discrimination
The court held that Schweitzer plausibly stated claims for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the OADA. The court found Schweitzer adequately alleged she had a disability and was terminated because of it.
Retaliation
The court allowed the plaintiffs’ ADEA retaliation claim to proceed, finding they plausibly alleged a causal connection between their protected activity and terminations. However, the court dismissed the OADA retaliation claim, citing Oklahoma Supreme Court precedent that the OADA does not provide a remedy for retaliation.
Burk Tort Claim
Theron’s Burk tort claim for wrongful termination was dismissed as premature under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. The court allowed Schweitzer’s Burk claim to proceed, finding she adequately alleged her termination violated Oklahoma public policy.
Fair Labor Standards Act
The court denied the motion to dismiss Theron’s FLSA claim, finding she sufficiently alleged she worked overtime without proper compensation.
First Amendment Claim
The court allowed the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to proceed. The court found plaintiffs plausibly alleged their speech involved matters of public concern and that the Board’s policies or customs were the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations.
The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the OADA retaliation claim and Theron’s Burk tort claim, but denied the motion as to all other claims.
Schrag on Law 