Plaintiff Antonio R. Weathersby sued defendant Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging violations of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Factual Overview
Plaintiff alleged that defendant committed discriminatory acts against him beginning on March 13, 2023, and continuing thereafter. He claimed defendant terminated his employment, failed to accommodate his disability after a workplace injury, retaliated against him after he reported issues, and failed to rehire him despite instructions from defendant’s owner to do so. Plaintiff also alleged he was subjected to racism, a hostile work environment, and segregation based on his race, color, age, and disability. Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge in April 2023 and received a right to sue letter on August 19, 2024.
Legal Analysis
Discrimination Claims: The court found that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege discrimination under Title VII and § 1981 because his conclusory allegations did not give rise to an inference of discrimination. For the ADEA claim, while plaintiff alleged he was born in 1968, he failed to plead facts showing he was qualified for his position or treated less favorably than younger workers. Regarding the ADA claim, plaintiff’s general allegation of a work-related injury was insufficient to establish disability under the ADA’s definition.
Failure to Accommodate: The court determined that plaintiff failed to state a failure to accommodate claim under the ADA because he did not adequately allege he was disabled, qualified for his position, or requested any specific reasonable accommodations.
Hostile Work Environment: The court found plaintiff failed to allege facts showing discrimination based on his protected characteristics or that any discrimination was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms of his employment.
Retaliation: The court concluded plaintiff failed to state retaliation claims because he did not allege he engaged in protected activity or show a causal connection between any protected activity and adverse employment action.
The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss all claims but allowed plaintiff until December 13, 2024, to file an amended complaint.
Schrag on Law 