Plaintiff Shirley Ann Cooks sued defendants Renaissance Waterford Hotel Oklahoma City, TPG Hotels & Resorts, Inc., and Marriott International, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, raising claims of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA). Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and defendants Renaissance and TPG additionally moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) for failure to effect proper service. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.
Factual Overview
Plaintiff Cooks alleged that she experienced a hostile work environment at the Renaissance Waterford Hotel on December 5, 2023, when an unidentified manager “put fingers in [her] face and yelled at her in the presence of hotel guests.” After a hotel guest filed a complaint about the incident, human resources informed Cooks that an investigation would take place. Following this incident, Cooks claimed that management, aware of her disability, attempted to move her to another department requiring weekend work and longer hours, which were outside the “restrictions of [her] disability.” Cooks filed a civil cover sheet stating that she was “terminated based on [her] disabilities as a form of retaliation for an incident that occurred.” Cooks sought relief under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Oklahoma state law, referencing the “Abusive Work Act of Oklahoma” and “Oklahoma Statutes of Workplace Discrimination,” which the Court construed as the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act.
Legal Analysis
ADA Discrimination Claim
The Court found that Cooks failed to state a plausible claim for disability discrimination under the ADA. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) that she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that she is qualified for the job; and (3) that she was discriminated against because of her disability. The Court noted that Cooks only conclusorily asserted that she had a “disability” but failed to identify what disability she suffered from. The Court cited precedent establishing that a plaintiff must “articulate with precision both her impairment and the major life activity it substantially limits” to assert a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Because Cooks’ complaint was too vague regarding her disability, the Court found she failed to state a claim for relief based on discrimination.
ADA Retaliation Claim
The Court also dismissed any potential retaliation claim under the ADA. To establish such a claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) she engaged in protected opposition to discrimination; (2) a reasonable employee would have found the employer’s subsequent action to be materially adverse; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the employer’s action. The Court found that Cooks’ complaint contained no allegations showing she engaged in protected opposition to discrimination, thus failing to state an ADA retaliation claim.
Failure to Accommodate Claim
For a failure to accommodate claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) she was disabled; (2) she was otherwise qualified; (3) she requested a plausibly reasonable accommodation; and (4) the defendant refused to accommodate her disability. The Court found that Cooks not only failed to allege facts showing she was disabled but also did not address any of the remaining elements of a failure to accommodate claim in her complaint.
Hostile Work Environment Claim
To the extent Cooks alleged a “hostile work environment,” the Court found her allegations insufficient to state a claim for relief. The Court noted that a one-time occurrence of an employer “yelling” at the plaintiff is insufficient to support such a claim, citing precedent that “a few isolated incidents of discriminatory conduct” cannot support a hostile work environment claim.
Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act Claim
The Court dismissed Cooks’ state law claim under the OADA for the same reasons as her ADA claims. The Court cited precedent establishing that “the protections provided by the OADA are co-extensive with the protections provided by federal law under the ADA,” and thus “a plaintiff’s OADA claim fails if her federal discrimination claims fail.”
Leave to Amend
The Court determined that leave to amend would be futile. The Court noted that Cooks had not requested leave to amend and that it was “dubious whether Plaintiff could state a plausible claim for employment discrimination if she were allowed to amend her Complaint.” The Court cited multiple precedents supporting its decision not to grant leave to amend sua sponte.
The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, finding all of her claims under both the ADA and OADA insufficient to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
Schrag on Law 