Porter v. Metropolitan Library Commission

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Metropolitan Library Commission filed by Joanie Porter. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(kw, )

P o r t e r v. Metropolitan Library Commission

Doc. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 1. J O A N IE PORTER, ) ) P l a i n t i f f, ) ) ) ) M E T R O P O L IT A N ) L IB R A R Y SYSTEM, a political ) s u b d iv is io n which is sued in the name ) o f the M E T R O P O L IT A N LIBRARY ) C O M M IS S IO N ) ) ) ) D efe n d a n t. ) C O M P L A IN T C O M E S NOW THE PLAINTIFF and for her causes of action herein alleges: P A R T IE S 1. T h e Plaintiff is Joanie Porter, an adult black female over the age of forty (40), who re sid e s in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 2. T h e Defendant is Metropolitan Library System, a business entity doing business in O k la h o m a County, Oklahoma. J U R IS D IC T I O N AND VENUE 3. P la in tif f 's claims are for race and gender discrimination (including retaliation for c o m p lain in g of race discrimination) which is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil R ig h ts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and by Oklahoma's clearly established public p o licie s in 25 O.S. §§1101, et seq. Plaintiff also brings claims for disability

v. 1.

C IV -1 0 -

A r is in g in Okla. Cnty. J u r y Trial Demanded A tto r n e y Lien Claimed

d is c rim in a tio n and retaliation including termination for requesting accommodations u n d e r the Americans with Disabilities Act as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 12111, et seq., a n d Oklahoma's Handicap Discrimination Act, 25 O.S. §§ 1101, 1901, inter alia, and f o r age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (A D E A ). Plaintiff also brings a state law claim for age, race and gender

Dockets.Justia.com

d is c rim in a tio n as prohibited by Oklahoma's public policy as set forth in the B u r k /S a i n t/S h ir a z i doctrine. Jurisdiction for the federal claims is vested under 29 U .S .C . § 626(c), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and 12117(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. B e c au s e the state law claims arise out of the same core of facts, jurisdiction is vested o v er those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 4. A ll of the actions complained of occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma and the D ef en d an t may be served in that county. Oklahoma County is within the Western D is tric t of the United States District Courts for Oklahoma wherefore venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). S T A T E M E N T OF FACTS 5. P la in t if f Porter is a black female over the age of forty (40) who was employed as a lib ra ria n by Defendant Metropolitan Library System from approximately June 2007 u n til her termination around March 2010. Plaintiff was fifty-four (54) years old at the tim e of her termination. 6. A ro u n d October 2008, Michael Owens became Plaintiff's supervisor. Mr. Owens is a black male, approximately 10 years younger than Plaintiff. Since becoming a s u p e rv is o r, Mr. Owens has exhibited a pattern of hiring younger white females and tre a tin g them more favorably than black females. 7. S h o r tly after Mr. Owens became Plaintiff's supervisor, he gave Plaintiff inconsistent in f o rm a tio n about how to perform her job duties and then reprimanded her for p e rf o rm a n c e of those job duties per his instruction. One example was in the area of " sh e lf management". Mr. Owens would instruct Plaintiff to withdraw books, but when s h e did, he would then tell Plaintiff to re-shelve them or verbally reprimand her for w ith d ra w in g the books. Around the Spring of 2009, Mr. Owens formally reprimanded P lain tiff for shelf management. Plaintiff complained to supervisor Denyvetta Davis th a t Mr. Owens was discriminating against her because he did not treat the white -2-

lib ra ria n s the same way. 8. S e v e ra l times after Mr. Owens became Plaintiff's supervisor, Plaintiff requested to a tte n d various training sessions, but Mr. Owens routinely denied Plaintiff's requests. O n more than one occasion, Plaintiff learned that Mr. Owens scheduled a younger w h ite librarian, Kim Fantrell (mid-20's) to attend training sessions. On more than one o c c as io n , Plaintiff was forced to confront Mr. Owens about Ms. Fantrell's scheduled a tte n d a n c e in order to gain permission for her own attendance at training sessions. 9. A n o th e r example of Mr. Owens' preferential treatment of white females over black em p lo yee s occurred around the summer of 2009 when Mr. Owens reduced the work h o u r s of two black library pages Kiara Calip, and Warren Anderson. Prior to Mr. O w en s becoming supervisor, Plaintiff had hired Ms. Calip (a black female) and Mr. A n d e r s o n (a black male) as part-time pages. Around June 2009, Mr. Owens hired H a n n a h Rudek, (a white female in her 20's) and reduced the hours of the two black p a g e s. Ms. Calip complained to Mr. Owens of the discriminatory treatment and re q u e ste d her hours back. When Mr. Owens refused to reinstate her to her previous h o u rs , Ms. Calip was forced to quit her employment. 10. P la in tif f was hurt on the job and suffered a back injury around June 2009, and was p la c ed on temporary lifting restrictions of ten (10) pounds. Despite the restriction, P lain tiff was able to continue performing all of her essential job functions. On January 1 2 , 2010, Plaintiff's restrictions became permanent, and she was involuntarily placed o n administrative leave. Prior to being placed on leave, Plaintiff informed her s u p e rv is o rs Rick Reed and Michael Owens, that she could perform all essential job f u n c tio n s, with the exception of moving a forty (40) pound rug for children's story tim e . Plaintiff told Mr. Owens and Mr. Reed that the only accommodation she re q u ire d to perform her job duties was assistance in rolling out the children's rug at s to ry time which she was required to do approximately three times per week. -3-

D e f e n d a n t denied Plaintiff's request for accommodation. 11. W h ile Plaintiff was on administrative leave, Plaintiff's supervisors weighed all of the item s in the library - including book carts, chairs and individual books to demonstrate th a t Plaintiff could not perform her job duties. Defendant never weighed each item i n the library when a white employee was placed on lifting restrictions. Defendant claim ed that the heavy book carts violated Plaintiff's weight restrictions. However, th is argument is pretextual because the book carts rolled on wheels and the fact that lif tin g a book cart would violate Plaintiff's weight restrictions, has no bearing on P la in t if f ' s ability to push the cart on wheels. 12. Around March 12, 2010, Plaintiff was terminated for not being able to perform her e ss e n tia l job functions. This reason is illegitimate and pretextual because she had been p e r f o r m in g all essential job functions up until the time of her termination and because o th e r employees with similar restrictions have not been terminated. The employees w ith similar restrictions who have kept their jobs are either white or male or at least te n (10) years younger than Plaintiff. 13. A f te r Plaintiff's termination, she was replaced by Anna Todd (a white female in her 2 0 's) and Taryn (LNU) (also a white female in her 20's). 14. F o llo w in g Plaintiff's termination, Mr. Owens ordered significantly lighter carts for th e younger white librarians, even though they did not have weight restrictions. 15. A s a direct result of Defendant's actions Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to su f f e r, lost wages and emotional distress/dignitary harm symptoms for which she is e n title d to compensation. 16. This is, at the least, a mixed motive case in that, to the extent that there were le g itim a te motives for the discrimination, retaliation and/or termination, those actions w e re also motivated by a mixture of discrimination based on her age, gender, race, her c o m p l a in ts of race discrimination, her disability and retaliation for requesting a -4-

re a so n a b le accommodation. 17. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies by timely filing an EEOC charge o f discrimination on April 8, 2010. The EEOC issued Plaintiff's right to sue letter on A u g u st 26, 2010 and Plaintiff received such letter thereafter. This complaint is timely f ile d within 90 days of Plaintiff's receipt of her right to sue letter. COUNT I F o r her first count, Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations and further alleges: 18. Discrimination based on age (including termination) is a violation of the Age D is c rim in a tio n in Employment Act (ADEA) and Oklahoma's public policy precluding a g e discrimination in employment as set out in the Burk/Saint/Shirazi doctrine. 19. Under this Count, Plaintiff is entitled to lost wages (including back, present and front p a y) and attorney fees and costs. 20. Additionally, under Oklahoma's public policy, Plaintiff is entitled to damages for the em o tio n al distress/dignitary harm suffered including embarrassment, anxiety, worry a n d other like emotions. 21. Because Defendant's action were willful, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of liquidated d a m a g e s (equal to Plaintiff's lost wages through the date of trial) under the ADEA a n d punitive damages under Oklahoma's public policy. C O U N T II F o r her second count, Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations and further alleges: 22. Discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation for complaining of race d is c rim in a tio n (including termination) is a violation of 42 U.S.C.§ 1981, Title VII of th e Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Burk doctrine. 23. Under this Count Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for her lost earnings, past, p re se n t and future, dignitary and emotional distress harms, and attorney fees and c o s ts . -5-

24.

B e c a u se the actions of the Defendants were willful and malicious or, at the least, in re c k le ss disregard of Plaintiff's federally and state protected rights, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages. C O U N T III F o r her third count, Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations and further alleges:

25.

Discrimination on the basis of gender (including termination) is a violation of 42 U .S .C .§ 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Burk doctrine.

26.

Under this Count Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for her lost earnings, past, p re se n t and future, dignitary and emotional distress harms, and attorney fees and c o s ts .

27.

B e c a u se the actions of the Defendants were willful and malicious or, at the least, in re c k le ss disregard of Plaintiff's federally and state protected rights, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages. C O U N T IV For her fourth count, Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations and further alleges:

28.

Discrimination on the basis of a disability and retaliation for Plaintiff's requests for re a so n a b le accommodations is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, O k la h o m a ' s Handicap Discrimination Act, and the Burk doctrine.

29.

U n d er both the ADA, Oklahoma's Handicap Discrimination Act and Oklahoma's p u b lic policy, Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for her lost earnings (past, present a n d future), emotional distress/dignitary damages, attorney fees and costs.

30.

B e c a u se the actions described above were willful, malicious, or, at the least, in re c k le ss disregard of Plaintiff's state and federal rights, Plaintiff is entitled to an a w a rd of punitive damages against the Defendant under both federal and state law. W H E R E F O R E , Plaintiff prays that she be granted judgment in her favor and against

th e Defendant on all of her claims and that this Court grant the Plaintiff all available -6-

c o m p e n s a to ry damages, punitive damages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment in te re s t, costs, attorney's fees and any other legal or equitable relief allowed by law. R E S P E C T F U L L Y SUBMITTED THIS 8 t h DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010.

H A M M O N S , GOWENS & HURST s / Jennifer Boyle Mark Hammons, OBA #3784 J e n n if e r Boyle OBA#22822 H A M M O N S , GOWENS & ASSOCIATES 3 2 5 Dean A. McGee Avenue O k la h o m a City, Oklahoma 73102 T e le p h o n e : [phone] F a c sim ile : [phone] J e n n if e r@ h a m m o n s la w .c o m C o u n se l for Plaintiff JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY'S LIEN CLAIMED

-7-