2024 Oklahoma Labor & Employment Law Year End Review

Wichita, Kan. (February 6, 2025) - While there were no pertinent new labor or employment laws adopted in Oklahoma in 2024, we highlight below several court decisions of note.

Tucker v. Cardinal Glass Indus. Inc., No. 22-cv-109 (E.D. Okla. Mar. 4, 2024) (J. Snow)

Tucker sued his former employer Cardinal Glass Industries, Inc., alleging race discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

During his employment, Tucker received several warnings for absenteeism and one for leaving his workstation without permission, which he disputed as racially biased. He filed discrimination complaints that led to internal investigations by Cardinal. Some reprimands were removed, but investigators found insufficient evidence of racial comments. Tucker resigned, citing dissatisfaction with the company's response.

The court granted Cardinal’s summary judgment motion, rejecting Tucker's Title VII racial discrimination claim. It found insufficient evidence of direct discrimination or adverse employment action. While racial remarks were reported, the court deemed these too isolated to constitute a hostile work environment. Tucker's resignation did not meet the threshold for constructive discharge, as conditions weren't objectively intolerable. The court emphasized the need for a “steady barrage” of discriminatory conduct for such a claim to succeed.

Alexander v. Two Oaks Invs., LLC, No. 23-cv-00406 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 9, 2024) (J. Huntsman)

Alexander sued Two Oaks Investments (CBR) and Key Group for discrimination based on pregnancy, sex, gender, disability, religion, retaliation, and wrongful termination. After informing both companies of her high-risk pregnancy requiring medical appointments, she allegedly faced discrimination, including inappropriate comments about unmarried pregnant women from coworkers. When she requested maternity and medical leave information in August 2021, CBR did not respond, and Key Group refused to provide leave. She was later terminated after missing work due to COVID-19 exposure.

Following her termination, Alexander filed an EEOC Charge of Discrimination and subsequent lawsuit with claims under Title VII and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA), later adding claims under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The court dismissed her PWFA claims because the act was not retroactive and thus did not cover the conduct at issue. The plaintiff’s ADA and OADA disability claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies - her EEOC charge did not sufficiently detail how her pregnancy-related impairments qualified as disabilities. While noting that pregnancy itself is not a disability, the court explained that pregnancy-related impairments could qualify if they substantially limit major life activities. However, Alexander only described her pregnancy as "high-risk" without specifying such limitations. All claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Mills v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 24-CV-0188 (N.D. Okla. June 27, 2024) (J. Eagan)

Mills sued Amazon.com Services, LLC, raising claims of discrimination and retaliation under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Amazon moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

Mills, an African American disabled veteran with PTSD working as an area manager, alleged racial and disability discrimination. His claims included being denied training, benefits, and holiday gifts given to non-minority employees, forced transfer to night shift despite childcare needs (while a white employee wasn't), and being asked to dress as a clown for Black History Month. After filing an internal complaint regarding discrimination, Mills claims Amazon retaliated with an investigation into his alleged aggressive behavior.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s retaliation and aiding and abetting claims under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA), on the grounds that state law does not provide employer remedies. His disability-based disparate treatment claim under OADA was also dismissed for insufficient evidence. However, his race and color discrimination claim under OADA, Title VII, and § 1981 were allowed to proceed. The court relied on the United States Supreme Court's recent Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri decision lowering the threshold for adverse employment actions. The court found Mills’ allegations of denied training opportunities, staff benefits, and night shift transfer were sufficient to state a plausible claim.

Liberty of Okla. Corp. v. Tobiason, No. 24-cv-00086 (W.D. Okla. July 22, 2024) (J. Friot)

Liberty sued former employee Tobiason for a declaratory judgment as to the validity of an EEOC mediation settlement. The dispute arose after Tobiason filed an EEOC discrimination charge. The parties allegedly reached a settlement via Zoom mediation, but Tobiason later repudiated it and filed state law claims. Liberty then filed this federal action.

The court found it had Title VII jurisdiction over EEOC-negotiated settlements, distinguishing them from private agreements. It also found Liberty adequately alleged mutual consent under state contract law.

However, applying the factors set forth in State Farm v. Mhoon, the court chose to abstain given the parallel state court action. It reasoned the declaratory action would not resolve all issues, risked federal-state friction, and the state court provided a better remedy.

Simmons v. Kendall, No. 21-cv-740 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 27, 2024) (J. Goodwin)

Simmons, a former U.S. Air Force employee, sued Secretary of the Air Force Kendall under the federal Rehabilitation Act. Kendall moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing her claims were not plausibly pleaded.

During the proceedings, Simmons filed a Motion to Amend to submit a second amended complaint. This amendment was to add Title VII claims following a final agency decision and include additional factual support for her existing federal claims. Kendall opposed this amendment, contending that the plaintiff’s proposed new pleading failed to plausibly allege either the Rehabilitation Act or Title VII claims and thus should be denied as futile.

The court, reviewing submissions and relevant authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), found Kendall had not sufficiently proven futility. Notably, Kendall failed to address the Title VII claim elements, making it impossible to demonstrate these new claims would warrant dismissal. The court also noted Kendall did not dispute that Simmons' Title VII claims were timely filed after receiving the final agency decision.

Based on these findings, the court granted Simmons' Motion to Amend, and denied Kendall's motion to dismiss as moot.

Gunkel v. OU Medicine, Inc., No. 23-CV-497 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 26, 2024) (J. Wyrick)

OU Health mandated COVID-19 vaccines for employees in July 2021, allowing exemptions for medical, philosophical, or religious reasons. Gunkel submitted a basic exemption citing "philosophical or religious beliefs."

When Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (“CMS”) issued a federal mandate in November 2021, OU Health required more detailed exemption requests. Gunkel submitted a form under this new process, but refrained from discussing his beliefs in detail. Eventually, after expiration of a January 2022 deadline for compliance or exemption, Gunkel was suspended and then terminated. He filed suit alleging religious discrimination and various torts.

Gunkel’s primary claim was that OU Health violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against him based on his religious beliefs. While the court acknowledged his sincere religious beliefs, it found he had not provided enough information to suggest discrimination.

The court noted that Gunkel’s refusal to detail his religious beliefs hindered OU Health’s ability to consider, and therefore potentially accommodate, his needs. The court found no precedent to support Gunkel’s argument that any alteration to an accommodation agreement, prompted by changing legal circumstances like the CMS mandate, automatically constituted discrimination. Moreover, the court highlighted that Gunkel’s non-disclosure of his religious beliefs made it impossible to infer discrimination on OU Health’s part. Consequently, the court ruled that Gunkel had not plausibly alleged his Title VII religious discrimination claim, leading to its dismissal with prejudice.

The court remanded the remaining state claims to the district court.

Mathis v. Kerr, 2024 OK 52 (2024)

Mathis, an Amazon delivery contractor in Tulsa, and his supervisor Fenstermaker were employed through two LLCs run by James Kerr. After Mathis was bitten by a dog while delivering packages in March 2021, he filed a workers' compensation claim. Although Kerr initially promised Mathis easier routes to accommodate his injury, he instead assigned him more difficult routes and attempted to pressure him into dropping the claim. Kerr fired both Mathis and Fenstermaker, and then interfered with their attempts to work for other Amazon contractors.

When the employees filed a lawsuit, Kerr attempted to compel arbitration based on their employment contracts. The case made its way through appeals, and its resolution was influenced by two significant 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries and Amazon v. Miller. Based on these precedents, the court reached two key conclusions: first, Amazon delivery drivers are exempt from federal arbitration requirements because they engage in interstate commerce by delivering goods shipped from other states; and second, under Oklahoma state law, workers' compensation retaliation claims are exempt from arbitration agreements.

The court ultimately remanded the case back to the district court to determine which of the plaintiffs' remaining claims (such as tortious interference and identity theft) should be subject to arbitration.

Tate Chamber of Okla. v. Cobbs, 2024 OK 13 (2024)

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that proponents could move forward with a petition to gradually increase the minimum wage in the state of Oklahoma. The court held the initiative and potential to increase the minimum wage did not violate the Oklahoma State Constitution.

For more information on these developments, contact the author or editors of this alert. Visit our Labor & Employment Practice page for additional alerts in this area.

Author:

Kennedy Mayo, Associate

Editors:

Blake M. Edwards, Partner

Alan L. Rupe, Managing Partner - Wichita and Kansas City