Bostic v. City of Jenks, Case No. 19-CV-0541-CVE-JFJ

• Decision Date: 09 June 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 19-CV-0541-CVE-JFJ
• Parties: JONETTA BOSTIC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF JENKS, CHRIS SHROUT, in his individual capacity as City Manager, REBECCA STEWART, in her individual capacity as Assistant City Manager, LISA BREWER, in her individual capacity as Human Resources Administrator, TERESA NOWLIN, in her individual capacity as City Attorney, and CAMERON ARTHUR, in his individual capacity as Chief of Police, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma

JONETTA BOSTIC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF JENKS, CHRIS SHROUT, in his individual capacity as City Manager,REBECCA STEWART, in her individual capacity as Assistant City Manager,LISA BREWER, in her individual capacity as Human Resources Administrator,TERESA NOWLIN, in her individual capacity as City Attorney, and

CAMERON ARTHUR, in his individual capacity as Chief of Police, Defendant.

Case No. 19-CV-0541-CVE-JFJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

June 9, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

Now before the Court are the following motions: Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on Behalf of Defendants Chris Shrout, Rebecca Stewart, Lisa Brewer, and Teresa Nowlin and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 19); Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on Behalf of Defendant City of Jenks and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 20); and the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on Behalf of Defendant Cameron Arthur and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 21). Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint (Dkt. # 15) alleging 18 claims arising from termination of her employment.¹ Defendants seek the dismissal of many of plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I.

Plaintiff Jonetta Bostic alleges that she worked for the City of Jenks (the City) from August 18, 2014 to June 21, 2018 as an assistant finance director/deputy city clerk. Dkt. # 15, at 5. Bostic's immediate supervisor was Josh McCorkle, and she claims that McCorkle regularly yelled at Bostic and berated her. Id. at 7. She also alleges that McCorkle stared at her breasts every time she entered his office, and she began to limit her interaction with McCorkle and avoid going into his office. Id. Bostic is a certified public accountant (CPA) and she claims that McCorkle disregarded her advice on financial matters, and he sought advice from a male CPA rather than accept her guidance. Id. Bostic alleges that she was excluded from meetings and McCorkle refused to give her information that she needed to do her job. Id. Bostic alleges that older employees were being forced out of their employment and, in June 2017, she overheard McCorkle say that he did not want to hire a female applicant for a job because she was "kind of old." Id.

Bostic claims that she was mistreated by a younger, male co-worker who occupied a subordinate position, and she brought the matter to McCorkle's attention. Id. at 7-8. McCorkle called Bostic and the subordinate together for a meeting, and Bostic claims that McCorkle inappropriately treated them as equals and undermined her authority. Id. at 8. Bostic alleges that the city planner, Robert Bell, repeatedly made sexual comments in plaintiff's presence, and she claims that McCorkle failed to take any action to prevent Bell's conduct. Id. However, she does not allege that she reported Bell's conduct to McCorkle or asked him to intervene. Bostic alleges that she was treated differently than her male co-workers in terms of pay. She claims that she was repeatedly denied merit pay increases that were awarded to younger and male co-workers, even though she received positive performance evaluations. Id. She also claims that she was paid a lowersalary than similarly-situated male co-workers, and she identifies McCorkle as a similarly-situated male employee. Id.

Bostic alleges that the stress caused by the discriminatory conduct aggravated some of her medical conditions, including, but not limited to, cervical osteoarthritis, degenerative joint disease, fibromyalgia, tourette syndrome, sjogren's syndrome, hashimoto/hyper thyroid disorder, major depressive disorder, extreme obsessive compulsive disorder, attention deficit disorder, anxiety, body dysmorphic disorder, and inflammatory bowel disorder. Id. at 9. Bostic also claims that she is a qualified person with a disability under the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (ADAAA). Id. at 9. She alleges that she was required to take intermittent medical leave in early 2016, but the City failed to inform her that she was eligible to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (FMLA). Id. at 10. Bostic learned from a physician that she could be eligible for leave under the FMLA, and she submitted the appropriate paperwork to the City. Id. Bostic claims that the City required her to exhaust her vacation and sick time before taking leave under the FMLA. Id. McCorkle allegedly mocked Bostic for taking so much medical leave and made inappropriate jokes about plaintiff's low body weight. Id. at 11.

Bostic also alleges that McCorkle mocked her religious beliefs by making fun of her "ethics" and telling her almost every other week that Bostic "didn't even know if there really was a Jesus." Id. at 11. McCorkle also allegedly "used Jesus Christ's name in vain" and forbade employees from putting up religious decorations near the holidays. Id. In June 2017, Bostic complained to the human resources administrator, Lisa Brewer, about McCorkle's behavior and claimed that she was subject to a hostile work environment. Id. City manager Chris Shrout prepared a report concerningBostic's allegations and the report allegedly identified evidence corroborating Bostic's allegations, but the report concluded that McCorkle's conduct was not discrimination based on any protected status. Id. at 12. While he was preparing his report, Shrout uncovered actions of Bostic that violated City policy, and Bostic was disciplined on July 27, 2017. Id. Bostic claims that the discipline was retaliation for reporting McCorkle's discriminatory behavior and for reporting mismanagement of City funds to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (DOT). Id. at 12-13. Bostic also made complaints to Shrout, Brewer, Stewart, and Nowlin about the mismanagement of funds by the Jenks Aquarium Authority and the improper designation of employees as independent contractors for payroll purposes. Id. at 13. Bostic also alleges that she was improperly designated as an exempt employee for the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (FLSA), and she claims that she was not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Id.

In October 2017, Bostic submitted a request to work from home one day a week based upon a recommendation by her physician, but Stewart denied Bostic's request. Id. at 14. Instead of allowing her to work from home, the City offered to reduce her hours to 40 hours per week, but Bostic claims that these were the standard office hours for City employees. Id. On November 3, 2017, Bostic was written up for using FMLA leave, and Bostic alleges that the stated reason for the write-up was baseless. Id. In January 2018, the City started soliciting applications for Bostic's job, even though she was still employed by the City. Id. Bostic complained to Shrout and Nowlin that Stewart acted unreasonably by denying her request for an accommodation, and Bostic alleged that other employees were also denied accommodations. Id. Bostic sent an e-mail to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaining of alleged workplace discrimination, and she filed a formal charge of discrimination on April 13, 2018. Id. at 2015. In March 2018, theCity was notified that the State Auditor and Inspector's Office wanted to review some of the accounting issues raised by Bostic, and Bostic alleges that the City significantly cut her pay without offering her any explanation. Id. at 15. In April 2018, Bostic was disciplined for yelling at other employees and engaging in disruptive behavior, but Bostic denies that she engaged in the actions cited in the write-up. Id. at 16.

On June 21, 2018, Bostic went to work and she was called into a meeting with Stewart, McCorkle, Brewer, and the chief of police, Cameron Arthur. Id. McCorkle told Bostic that her employment was not "working out" and that she was being fired. Id. Bostic claims that she asked for further explanation, but she was simply told by Arthur that she needed to leave. Id. On September 13, 2018, Bostic drove to city hall to make a COBRA payment, and Arthur approached Bostic and accused her of being under the influence. Id. at 17. Bostic denied that she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but Arthur demanded that she hand over her car keys and get out of her car. Id. at 17-18. Arthur and a Jenks police officer allegedly mocked Bostic because of her disabilities, and Arthur told Bostic that she could not drive in Jenks unless she "drops it all." Id. at 18-19. Bostic understood Arthur to be referring to her EEOC charge and other complaints of discriminatory conduct against City officials. Id. at 19. Several weeks later, Bostic learned that her driver's license had been suspended after the City reported to the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety that Bostic had an impairment that prevented her from driving safely. Id.

On October 10, 2019, Bostic filed a complaint (Dkt. # 2) alleging 18 claims against the City, Shrout, Stewart, Brewer, Nowlin, and Arthur. Bostic subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging claims under Title VII (Counts I and III), the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (Count II), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (ADEA) (Counts IV and V),the ADA (Count VI), the FMLA (Count VII), the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (FLSA) (Counts VIII and IX), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims (Counts X, XI, XVII, and XVIII), and state law claims (Counts XII, XIII, XIV, XV, and XVI).

II.

In considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court must determine whether the claimant has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. A motion to dismiss is properly granted when a complaint provides no "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell...