Goodnow v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services

Filing 43

OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; denying 30 Motion for Leave to File Document(s); denying 31 Motion to Reconsider; denying 32 Motion to Certify Question to State Court (hbo, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

HIU-YEE GOODNOW,
Plaintiff,
v.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES, JOHN McCRACKEN,
JOAN GOIN, STEPHANIE STIE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-CV-54-GKF-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are plaintiff Hiu-Yee Goodnow’s Motion for Leave to File Corrected
Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. #30], Motion for Rehearing[Dkt. #31] and alternative Motion
to Certify Question to the State Court [Dkt. #32]. Defendants oppose all three motions.
I. Background/Procedural Status
Goodnow, a former employee of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (“DHS”),
sued defendants for disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, PL 110-2008
(“ADAAA”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In her Amended Complaint, she asserted claims against
DHS for failure to accommodate in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and (b)(5) (First Cause of
Action); retaliation in violation of the ADAAA (Second Cause of Action); and wrongful
termination in violation of the ADAAA (Third Cause of Action). She asserted claims for
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against individual defendants John McCracken, Joan Goin and

Stephanie Stie for harassment, retaliation and termination in violation of the ADAAA (Fourth
Cause of Action); violation of her constitutional right of due process (Fifth Cause of Action); and
Violation of her right of equal protections (Sixth Cause of Action).
The court granted DHS’s motion to dismiss the first through third causes of action in the
Amended Complaint based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. [Dkt. #28 at 2-3].
The court granted the Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Cause of Action for
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Individual Defendants’ alleged violation of the ADAAA,
finding plaintiff cannot bring a § 1983 action to enforce the substantive rights created by Title I
of the ADAAA. [Id. at 6-8]. Additionally, the court dismissed the Fifth Cause of Action for
deprivation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because plaintiff, a
probationary employee, was not alleged to be a permanent classified employee under the
Oklahoma Personnel Act and therefore had no protected property interest in her job. [Id. at 8-9].
The court dismissed the Sixth Cause of Action for deprivation of her right of equal protection,
finding, based on Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008), that plaintiff
failed to state a cognizable “class of one” claim. [Id. at 9-8]. The court gave plaintiff leave to
file a motion to amend her complaint on or before October 21, 2011. [Id. at 11].
II. Motion for Leave to File Corrected Second Amended Complaint
On October 21, 2011, plaintiff—without leave of court—filed a Second Amended
Complaint. [Dkt. #29]. Subsequently, she filed a motion in which she seeks leave to file a
“Corrected Second Amended Complaint.” [Dkt. #30]. The court has stricken the Second
Amended Complaint as filed without leave of court and in violation of the previous order. [Dkt.
#42]. Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion.

2

The proposed “Corrected Second Amended Complaint” omits claims against DHS and
includes additional factual allegations about conduct by Individual Defendants which she asserts
violated her rights. The proposed Second Amended Complaint once again asserts § 1983 claims
against the Individual Defendants for alleged violations of the ADAAA, her due process rights
and her right of equal protection.
First Cause of Action (§ 1983 Claim Based on ADAAA Violations)
The court, in dismissing this claim the first time around, held as a matter of law that
plaintiff could not enforce substantive rights created by Title II of the ADA through a § 1983
claim. [Dkt. 28 at 7-8]. See Stevenson v. ISD No. 1-038 of Garvin Co., Oklahoma, 393 F.
Supp.2d 1148 (W.D. Okla. 2005). Plaintiff will not be permitted to assert this futile claim.
Second Cause of Action (§ 1983 Claim Based on Violation of Due Process Right)
Similarly, the court previously dismissed this claim because plaintiff did not allege facts
supporting the existence of a legally cognizable property interest, e.g. that she was a permanent
classified employee under the Oklahoma Personnel Act. Thus, she had no right to a
pretermination hearing and/or the right to appeal her discharge. [Dkt. #28 at 8-9]; 74 O.S. §
840-6.4, 6.5. Plaintiff’s proposed Corrected Second Amended Complaint contains no facts
supporting a legally cognizable property interest. Therefore, leave to file must be denied with
respect to this claim.
Third Cause of Action (§ 1983 Claim Based on Violation of Right of Equal Protection)
In its earlier order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, the court found that plaintiff, in
alleging Individual Defendants denied her right to equal protection by “harassing her, retaliating
against her, and discharging her pursuant to DHS custom, policy, and practice unlike the

3

treatment accorded similarly situated DHS employees,” had attempted to assert a “class of one”
claim.
Typically, equal protection claims concern governmental classifications that “affect some
groups of citizens differently than others.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425 (1961).
The Supreme Court has recognized, though, that an equal protection claim can, in some
circumstances, be sustained where a plaintiff has not alleged class-based discrimination, but
instead claims she has been irrationally singled out as a so-called “class of one.” Village of
Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564-65 (2000). However, in Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of
Agriculture, 533 U.S. 591, 606-07 (2008), the court declined to recognize a “class of one” claim
in the public employment context.
Plaintiff’s proposed Corrected Second Amended Complaint alleges no facts that render
her claim anything other than an impermissible “class of one” claim against a public employer.
Therefore, leave to amend must be denied.
III. Motion for Rehearing
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing her claims against DHS.
She asserts the court misapprehended applicable law with respect to these claims.
“[A] Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is designed to permit relief in extraordinary
circumstances and not to offer a second bite at the proverbial apple.” Syntroleum Corp. v.
Fletcher Int’l, Ltd., No. 08-CV-384-JHP-FHM, 2009 WL 761322, at *1 (N.D. Okla. March 19,
2009) (quoting Maul v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, No. CIV-05-605, 2006 WL 3447629, at
*1 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 29, 2006)). A motion to reconsider may be considered on the following
grounds: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the

4

Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark Corp. v. Samson
Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995)). In other words, when the court has
“misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law,” a motion to reconsider is
appropriate. Id.; see Syntroleum Corp., 2009 WL 761322, at *1.
Plaintiff asserts the court committed error in granting defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Clear error, as contemplated by Rule 59(c), requires “the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed based on the entire evidence or that a particular fact determination
lacks any basis in the record.” Maul, 1005 WL 3447629, at *1.
In its earlier order the court, citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974);
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 (2001); Estes v.
Wyoming Dept. of Transportation, 302 F.3d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 2002); Tarver v. State of
Oklahoma, 2010 WL 944205 (N.D. Okla. 2010); and Elwell v. State of Oklahoma, 2011 WL
560455 (W.D. Okla. 2011), held that plaintiff’s claims for violation of Title I of the ADAAA
were barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The court rejected plaintiff’s
argument that sovereign immunity does not apply to the ADAAA. Further, the court rejected
plaintiff’s argument that the state has waived sovereign immunity.1 Having reviewed plaintiff’s
motion, the briefing on the motions to dismiss and the court’s order granting those motions, the
court believes it committed no “clear error” and its dismissal of the Amended Complaint was
appropriate. Therefore, plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing [Dkt. #31] is denied.

1

The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that Oklahoma implicitly waived sovereign immunity
by agreeing with EEOC to share jurisdiction to investigate allegations of employment
discrimination or by any other conduct. [Dkt. # 28 at 3]. Although plaintiff cited cases
confirming federal and state laws prohibit disability discrimination (See, e.g., Tate v. BrowningFerris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992); Kruschowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 202 P.3d 144
(Okla. 2008)), she cited no authority for the proposition that the state’s Eleventh Amendment
immunity has been abrogated or waived.
5

IV. Motion to Certify
Alternately, plaintiff seeks an order submitting “state constitutional questions” to the
Oklahoma Supreme Court. Plaintiff does not specify what “state constitutional questions” she
proposes to submit to the state court.
Whether to certify a question of state law to the state supreme court is within the
discretion of the federal court." Armijo v. Ex Cam, Inc., 843 F.2d 406, 407 (10th Cir. 1988)
(citations omitted). The court believes the law regarding Eleventh Amendment immunity of
states to disability discrimination lawsuits is well settled. Therefore, plaintiff’s alternative
motion to certify is denied.
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend [Dkt. #30], Motion for
Rehearing [Dkt. #31] and Motion to Certify [Dkt. #32] are denied.
ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2012.

6