Amari Kimbro sued the Oklahoma House of Representatives in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, raising claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Oklahoma public policy. Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Kimbro worked as a Legislative Assistant for the Oklahoma House of Representatives from January 2019 until her termination in June 2021. Throughout her employment, she received documented performance issues, including complaints from Representative Regina Goodwin, improper time-off procedures, late timesheet submissions, and unauthorized offsite work. In April 2021, during a Black Lives Matter protest at the House, Kimbro left her office to record the protest, approached protesters by name, and posted the video to Facebook while tagging an organizer, all while on the clock. Following her termination, Kimbro filed an EEOC charge alleging discrimination and retaliation based on race.
There were no evidentiary disputes addressed in the opinion.
Legal Analysis
Section 1981 Claims: The court found that § 1981 does not provide a remedy for racial discrimination against state actors, as such claims must be brought under § 1983. The court rejected Kimbro’s request to amend her complaint to assert a § 1983 claim, noting that such amendment would be futile due to sovereign immunity.
Title VII Discrimination: Using the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court assumed without deciding that Kimbro established a prima facie case. However, the court found that the House provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination, including performance issues and involvement in the protest. In attempting to show pretext, Kimbro produced letters from Representatives Jason Lowe and Denise Brewer praising her work performance, but the court found these insufficient because they were written after her termination and there was no evidence the decision-maker was aware of these opinions. The court also rejected Kimbro’s comparison to a white employee, Tonya Pogue, finding their situations distinguishable because while both recorded the protest, only Kimbro posted the video to Facebook, tagged an organizer, and had a history of performance issues. The court determined Kimbro failed to show these reasons were pretextual.
Title VII Retaliation: The court found that Kimbro abandoned her retaliation claim by failing to respond to the House’s arguments or present supporting evidence.
Oklahoma Public Policy: The court determined that Kimbro abandoned these claims by failing to identify any specific Oklahoma public policy violations or respond to the House’s arguments.
The court granted summary judgment to the House on all claims and denied as moot the House’s pending Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Final Exhibit List.
Schrag on Law 