Plaintiff Ronald Spears sued defendants Okmulgee County Criminal Justice Trust Authority (OCCJA) and Okmulgee County Board of Commissioners in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, and for wrongful discharge. Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Plaintiff was employed with OCCJA from March 2007 until July 23, 2020. During that time, OCCJA was Plaintiff’s employer and operated the jail facilities as a separate entity from Okmulgee County. Plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer in 2016 and began chemotherapy treatment in approximately 2017. Plaintiff advised the OCCJA Executive Director, John Martin, that he needed to periodically take time off work for cancer treatments, and Mr. Martin approved this request. Later, when Sam McCoy became the OCCJA Executive Director, Plaintiff made the same request, which Mr. McCoy also approved.
Plaintiff was suspended by OCCJA with full pay and benefits on July 2, 2020, and was terminated on July 23, 2020. During Plaintiff’s suspension, he had no job duties and was not permitted in the OCCJA facilities. On July 2, 2020, the OCCJA also suspended Mr. McCoy and subsequently contracted with Shannon Clark to serve as a consultant and the interim Executive Director of OCCJA. As the interim Executive Director, Mr. Clark did not have the authority to change or implement any new policies, and he did not attempt to do so.
OCCJA never had a policy prohibiting employees from taking time off work to obtain medical care. During July 2020, it was OCCJA’s policy to permit employees to take time off to attend doctor’s appointments or to obtain medical treatment, and this policy did not change during July 2020. Plaintiff was never denied any request to take time off work for his cancer treatments while Mr. McCoy was Executive Director. Plaintiff never made a request to Mr. Clark for time off work for medical treatment, and Mr. Clark never denied any such request. Plaintiff never used any disability accommodation while Mr. Clark was interim Executive Director, and he never missed or had to reschedule any cancer treatment because a request to take time off work was denied.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, did not seek an extension of time to file a response, and did not seek leave to file a response out of time. The court found that Plaintiff appeared to have lost interest in his claim if not completely abandoned it, noting that Plaintiff had failed to file a third amended complaint after being granted leave to do so, failed to comply with various deadlines in the scheduling order, did not comply with the Settlement Conference Order, and did not conduct any discovery in the case.
Legal Analysis
Failure to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion
The court noted that a party’s failure to file a response to a summary judgment motion is not, by itself, a sufficient basis on which to enter judgment against the party. The court must make the additional determination that judgment for the moving party is “appropriate” under Rule 56. By failing to file a response, the nonmoving party waives the right to respond or to controvert the facts asserted in the summary judgment motion. The court should accept as true all material facts asserted and properly supported in the summary judgment motion, but only if those facts entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law should the court grant summary judgment.
The court declined to grant Plaintiff additional time to show cause why the motion should not be granted, finding such additional time would be futile given Plaintiff’s pattern of failing to comply with deadlines and requirements throughout the case.
Board of Commissioners’ Liability Under the ADA
The court found that Defendant Board of Commissioners could not be liable to Plaintiff under the ADA because it was not Plaintiff’s employer. The ADA prohibits a covered employer from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability, and an “employer” is defined as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees… and any agent of such person.” Because it was undisputed that the Board was not Plaintiff’s employer, it could not be liable to Plaintiff and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Failure-to-Accommodate Claim Against OCCJA
To establish a prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim, Plaintiff must prove that: (1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qualified; (3) he requested a plausibly reasonable accommodation; and (4) his employer refused to accommodate his disability. Plaintiff alleged he was denied an accommodation when Mr. Clark changed OCCJA’s policy and refused him leave to receive medical treatment.
The court found that the undisputed facts showed Plaintiff received an accommodation for his need to take time off work to receive medical treatment, and such accommodation was never rescinded or altered. Plaintiff received his requested accommodation while Mr. Martin and Mr. McCoy were Executive Directors of OCCJA. Plaintiff was suspended and not working during the time Mr. Clark was interim Executive Director. Mr. Clark did not have the authority to change or alter any OCCJA policy, and he did not change or alter any OCCJA policy prior to Plaintiff’s termination. Plaintiff never used any disability accommodation while Mr. Clark was interim Executive Director, and Plaintiff never missed or had to reschedule any cancer treatment because a request to take time off work was denied.
The court concluded that because it was undisputed that Defendants did not fail to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability, Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and Defendants’ motion for confession of judgment be denied as moot.
Schrag on Law 