Cruz v. Office of Juvenile Affairs

Filing 43

ORDER denying 26 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 11/13/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ADAM DE LA CRUZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.,
OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-1020-M

ORDER
This case is set on the Court’s December 2015 trial docket.
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 1, 2015. On
November 3, 2015, plaintiff filed his response, and on November 10, 2015, defendant filed its reply.
Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.

Introduction
Plaintiff was employed by defendant Office of Juvenile Affairs (“OJA”) to work as a youth

guidance specialist at Southwest Oklahoma Juvenile Center (“SWOJC”). Plaintiff had surgery on
August 20, 2013 for kidney cancer. Plaintiff submitted FMLA documentation requesting leave for
the surgery and a period of 4 to 6 weeks to recover from the surgery. OJA granted plaintiff’s FMLA
request.
During his leave plaintiff was required to check-in with his supervisor on a weekly basis.
OJA asserts that plaintiff never checked-in with his supervisor or anyone at SWOJC during or after
his 4 to 6 week surgery recovery period. Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that he left multiple
voice mail messages for his supervisor which were never returned, and that he spoke with Jane Blair,
who works in human resources at SWOJC, regarding his returning to work. OJA further asserts that

plaintiff did not provide any additional medical documentation of any need for being off any
additional period of time. OJA ultimately issued a Report to Duty Notice, and OJA contends that
plaintiff never reported to duty. Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that he was advised that he
could not return to work until he provided medical documentation that he could return to work and
that he provided OJA that documentation and still was not contacted to return to work. On
December 11, 2013, OJA sent plaintiff the “Proposed Disciplinary Action: Notice of PreTermination Action,” which advised him that a pre-termination hearing was scheduled for December
20, 2013. Plaintiff did not attend his pre-termination hearing. Plaintiff asserts that he contacted J.
D. Johnson, the institutional program coordinator at SWOJC, about moving the pre-termination
hearing because plaintiff had to take his wife to a doctor’s appointment and that Mr. Johnson advised
him that the hearing could not be moved but that he would speak for plaintiff at the hearing and that
he “had his back.” On December 27, 2013, OJA terminated plaintiff’s employment.
On August 20, 2014, plaintiff filed the instant action against OJA. Plaintiff alleges that he
was discriminated and retaliated against on the basis of his disability. OJA now moves this Court
for summary judgment as to all of plaintiff’s claims.
II.

Summary Judgment Standard
“Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving
party is entitled to summary judgment where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational
trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. When applying this standard, [the Court] examines
the record and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving

2

party.” 19 Solid Waste Dep’t Mechs. v. City of Albuquerque, 156 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (10th Cir.
1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
“Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law
will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Furthermore, the non-movant has a burden
of doing more than simply showing there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.
Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Neustrom v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 156 F.3d 1057, 1066 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
III.

Discussion
In addressing plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims, the Court, because plaintiff

has not presented any direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation, must apply the three-part test
established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792 (1973). First, plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation. See
Jones v. Okla. City Pub. Sch., 617 F.3d 1273, 1278 (10th Cir. 2010). Second, once plaintiff has
established a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to defendant to articulate a legitimate,
non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. See id. Third, if defendant has provided a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, the burden shifts to plaintiff to prove the employer’s proffered
reason was pretextual. See id.
Pretext can be established if the plaintiff shows either “that a discriminatory reason more
likely motivated the employer or . . . that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of
credence.” Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981) (citation omitted).

3

The “relevant inquiry is not whether [the employer’s] proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct,
but whether [the employer] honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those
beliefs.” Stover v. Martinez, 382 F.3d 1064, 1076 (10th Cir. 2004).
A.

Failure to accommodate claim

To state a prima facie case of failure to accommodate, plaintiff must show that (1) he is a
qualified individual with a disability; (2) his employer was aware of his disability; and (3) his
employer failed to reasonably accommodate the disability. See Allen v. SouthCrest Hosp., 455 F.
App’x 827, 830 n.2 (10th Cir 2011). For purposes of its motion for summary judgment, OJA does
not dispute that plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and evidentiary submissions, and viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and viewing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s
favor, the Court finds plaintiff has set forth sufficient evidence that OJA was aware of his disability
and that OJA failed to reasonably accommodate the disability to state a prima facie case of failure
to accommodate. Plaintiff has presented evidence that OJA was aware that plaintiff had kidney
cancer and that even post-surgery, plaintiff could require time off for treatments and flare-ups.
Additionally, plaintiff has presented evidence that he did attempt to return to work but OJA would
not allow him to return. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has stated a prima facie case of
failure to accommodate.
Since plaintiff has established a prima facie case of failure to accommodate, OJA must now
articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff. OJA asserts that plaintiff
was terminated because he refused to report to work. The Court finds OJA has met its burden to
produce a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff’s termination.

4

The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and evidentiary submissions. Viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and viewing all reasonable inferences in
plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue
as to whether OJA’s explanation is pretextual. Specifically, plaintiff has testified that he did checkin with his supervisor while he was on leave and that he attempted to return to work but OJA would
not let him return. As it is improper for this Court to make credibility determinations at the
summary judgment stage, plaintiff’s testimony clearly is sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue
as to pretext.
Accordingly, the Court finds that OJA is not entitled to summary judgment as to plaintiff’s
failure to accommodate claim.
B.

Discrimination claim

To state a prima facie case of discrimination, plaintiff must show that (1) he is disabled
within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); (2) he was qualified to perform
the essential functions of his job with or without accommodations; and (3) he was terminated under
circumstances which give rise to an inference that the termination was based on his disability.
See Smothers v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 740 F.3d 530, 544 (10th Cir. 2014). For purposes of its motion
for summary judgment, OJA does not dispute that plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the
ADA and admits that plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of his job.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and evidentiary submissions, and viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and viewing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s
favor, the Court finds plaintiff has set forth sufficient evidence showing that he was terminated
under circumstances which give rise to an inference that his termination was based on his disability.

5

Plaintiff has presented evidence that contrary to OJA’s assertions, he attempted to return to work
but OJA would not allow him to return. Further, plaintiff has testified that he requested that the
pre–termination hearing be moved to a different date, that his request was denied, and that Mr.
Johnson stated that he would speak for him at the hearing, but he did not. Accordingly, the Court
finds that plaintiff has stated a prima facie case of discrimination.
Since plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination, OJA must now articulate
a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff. OJA asserts that plaintiff was
terminated because he refused to report to work. The Court finds OJA has met its burden to produce
a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff’s termination.
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and evidentiary submissions. Viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and viewing all reasonable inferences in
plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue
as to whether OJA’s explanation is pretextual. Specifically, plaintiff has testified that he did checkin with his supervisor while he was on leave and that he attempted to return to work but OJA would
not let him return. As it is improper for this Court to make credibility determinations at the
summary judgment stage, plaintiff’s testimony clearly is sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue
as to pretext.
Accordingly, the Court finds that OJA is not entitled to summary judgment as to plaintiff’s
discrimination claim.
C.

Retaliation claim

To state a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show: (1) he engaged in protected
activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse action either after or contemporaneous with his

6

protected activity; and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.
See Reinhardt v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 595 F.3d 1126, 1131 (10th Cir. 2010). For
purposes of its motion for summary judgment, OJA does not dispute that plaintiff’s termination is
a materially adverse action.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, and viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to plaintiff and viewing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds
plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to state a prima facie case of retaliation. A request for
a reasonable accommodation is a protected activity. See Wehrley v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 513
F. App’x 733, 740 (10th Cir. 2013). Further, an allowance of time for treatment and recuperation
can constitute a request for accommodation. See Taylor v. Pepsi-Cola Co., 196 F.3d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1999). As plaintiff requested leave for his surgery and time to recover from his surgery,
the Court finds plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact as to
whether he engaged in protected activity. Additionally, the Court finds the time period between
when plaintiff requested and took his leave and his termination is sufficiently close to satisfy the
causal connection. See Annett v. Univ. of Kan., 371 F.3d 1233, 1240-41 (10th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has stated a prima facie case of retaliation.
Since plaintiff has established a prima facie case of retaliation, OJA must now articulate a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff. OJA asserts that plaintiff was
terminated because he refused to report to work. The Court finds OJA has met its burden to produce
a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff’s termination.
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and evidentiary submissions. Viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and viewing all reasonable inferences in

7

plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue
as to whether OJA’s explanation is pretextual. Specifically, plaintiff has testified that he did checkin with his supervisor while he was on leave and that he attempted to return to work but OJA would
not let him return. As it is improper for this Court to make credibility determinations at the
summary judgment stage, plaintiff’s testimony clearly is sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue
as to pretext.
Accordingly, the Court finds that OJA is not entitled to summary judgment as to plaintiff’s
retaliation claim.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [docket no. 26].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of November, 2015.

8