Plaintiff Debra Wright sued OGE Energy Corporation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, raising claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. Before the court were three motions: (1) Wright’s motion for summary judgment on certain defenses asserted by OGE; (2) OGE’s motion for summary judgment on all claims; and (3) OGE’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings regarding Wright’s request for compensatory and punitive damages on her ADA retaliation claim.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Wright worked as an Accountant Associate in OGE’s Financial Accounting department, responsible for billing third parties other than OGE’s electric customers. She began experiencing back pain in late 2020, which she reported to her supervisor Jennifer Cook. After receiving treatment for her back issues, Wright underwent open heart surgery in June 2021 to replace her aortic and mitral valves, followed by pacemaker installation. She remained on medical leave until January 2022.
Upon her return to work, Wright experienced memory and dizziness issues which she attributed to her heart medication. She requested accommodations including additional time to complete tasks and assistance with her workload. Cook placed Wright on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in April 2022, which included new responsibilities related to City Owned Poles (COP) processing. Wright continued to request accommodations while on the PIP. OGE terminated Wright’s employment on July 25, 2022, citing failure to meet PIP expectations.
Legal Analysis
Here’s an expanded Legal Analysis section while keeping the rest of the summary the same:
Legal Analysis
OGE’s Motion on Failure to Accommodate: The court conducted a detailed analysis of the four required elements: disability status, qualification, reasonable accommodation request, and refusal to accommodate. On disability, the court found Wright’s heart condition requiring valve replacements and a pacemaker could substantially limit major life activities. Regarding qualification, while OGE argued Wright couldn’t perform essential functions despite training and coaching, the court found evidence suggesting she could do so with accommodation. The court emphasized that while OGE’s failure to engage in the interactive process alone wasn’t determinative, Wright produced evidence showing reasonable accommodations were possible. These included her requests for additional time to complete tasks and assistance with workload, which the court found facially reasonable based partially on evidence from OGE’s own 30(b)(6) witness that accommodating Wright for six months would have been reasonable. The court noted that while OGE claimed allowing others to assist would require reallocation of essential functions (typically not required under the ADA), evidence showed Cook had already planned to have trained backup share Wright’s duties.
OGE’s Motion on Disability Discrimination: Applying McDonnell-Douglas, the court found Wright established her prima facie case and provided substantial evidence of pretext. This included: (1) Cook giving Wright her first negative performance rating after disclosure of medical issues; (2) Cook revoking Wright’s alternative work schedule after accommodation requests; (3) Cook expressing frustration about Wright’s medical appointments; (4) disparate treatment in performance evaluations where other employees without medical conditions received “Meets Expectations” despite similar performance issues; (5) rating Wright lower than non-disabled employees on identical performance metrics; (6) lack of documentation supporting PIP failures; and (7) including new tasks in the PIP that weren’t previously required. The court found particularly significant that Wright wasn’t required to perform COP processes until the PIP, yet this became a primary basis for termination. The court also noted inconsistencies in OGE’s position about offering accommodation, where Cook indicated help would be available at the PIP’s end but terminated Wright before that could occur.
OGE’s Motion on Retaliation: The court found Wright established protected activity through both explicit and implicit accommodation requests. The court emphasized that formal “reasonable accommodation” language wasn’t required; Wright’s communications about needing assistance due to her medical condition sufficed. On causation, the court found strong temporal proximity between Wright’s ongoing accommodation requests during the PIP period and her termination. The court also found evidence of retaliatory motive in Cook’s reactions to Wright’s medical appointments and condition, particularly her comments about how long Wright’s medical issues would continue. The court determined Wright showed pretext through the same evidence supporting her discrimination claim, plus the suspicious timing of the PIP implementation immediately after Wright’s return from medical leave.
OGE’s Motion — Court’s Concluding Statements: The court’s handling of OGE’s summary judgment motion is notable for a candid concluding observation that makes the ruling particularly interesting. After denying summary judgment on all claims, the court added this commentary about Wright’s prospects at trial:
“That said, the court notes, quite readily, that Wright’s prospects for success at trial will depend on her prevailing on a litany of issues on which, in this order, she has avoided summary judgment by a paper-thin margin. A jury could quite easily find, first, that OGE was as patient in coping with Wright’s requests as Wright was relentless in making those requests, and, ultimately, that Wright left OGE with no reasonable option other than to terminate her employment.”
Wright’s Motion on OGE’s Good Faith Defense: The court rejected Wright’s argument that OGE couldn’t assert good faith while simultaneously denying she requested accommodation. The court found OGE could pursue alternative theories but determined factual disputes existed about whether OGE acted in good faith, particularly given evidence suggesting it failed to properly engage in the interactive process.
Wright’s Motion on Failure to Mitigate: The court found a unique “factual interrelationship” between the availability of suitable positions and Wright’s diligence in seeking them. Given Wright’s adaptable skill set as an accountant and the robust central Oklahoma job market, the court determined these issues were best left for jury determination rather than summary judgment.
OGE’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: On the motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding damages, the court emphasized the importance of Rule 12(c)’s timing requirement of “early enough not to delay trial.” The court found OGE’s three-week delay in filing after discovering the damages issue, combined with the proximity to trial, warranted denial of leave to file the late motion.
Schrag on Law 