Plaintiff Jeff Crook sued defendant Sunflower Electric Power Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging age discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and workers’ compensation retaliatory discharge. Defendant moved to partially dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6), specifically targeting the age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), retaliation in violation of the ADEA, and punitive damages under the ADEA.
Factual Overview
Plaintiff worked as a coal and material handling supervisor for Sunflower Electric Power Corporation for 24 years, holding his most recent position since 2016. In December 2023, he suffered a severe injury to his right hand while performing maintenance on a coal chute steel plate. After the injury, he filed a workers’ compensation claim and took time off for recovery. In March 2024, although his doctors cleared him for light duty work, Sunflower allegedly refused to allow him to return or accommodate his injury. Later that month, he experienced additional medical issues related to a colonoscopy procedure. On April 2, 2024, a Sunflower employee allegedly told plaintiff during a phone call that the company considered him a liability who might get hurt again. Sunflower terminated plaintiff’s employment on April 4, 2024. Plaintiff alleged he never received any complaints about his work performance and was never placed on a performance improvement plan. He claimed the real reason for his termination was that Sunflower considered him too old and disabled to work.
Legal Analysis
Age Discrimination Claim Under ADEA: The court addressed whether plaintiff established a prima facie case of age discrimination. While the parties agreed on three elements of the four-part test, they disputed the fourth element. The court found it unnecessary to resolve the dispute about the proper test because plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts under either proposed standard. The court noted that plaintiff did not allege he was treated differently from similarly situated younger employees, and his allegations primarily focused on his injury rather than age-based discrimination.
ADEA Retaliation: The court granted dismissal of the ADEA retaliation claim after plaintiff clarified that he was only pursuing retaliation claims based on disability discrimination and workers’ compensation, not age discrimination.
Punitive Damages Under ADEA: The court denied as moot the motion to dismiss punitive damages under the ADEA since it had dismissed the underlying ADEA claims.
The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADEA discrimination and retaliation claims, and denied as moot the motion regarding punitive damages under the ADEA.
Schrag on Law 