Date: 06-14-2012

Case Style: Tanya E. Davis v. Ean Services, LLC

Case Number: CJ-2012-2143

Judge: Mary Fitzgerald

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: J. Derek Ingle

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Plaintiff TANYA E. DAVIS, by and through her attorney of
record, I. Derek Engle of E. Terrill Corley & Associates, and filed this Petition against Defendants EAN SERVICES, LLC, ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. and ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY-SOUTHWEST and alleges as follows:

I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff TANYA E. DAVIS is an individual residing in Muskogee, Muskogee County, Oklahoma.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant EAN SERVICES, LLC, is a limited liability company doing business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. is a corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY-SOUTHWEST is a corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma.

5. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants as defined by state and
federal law.

6. The events giving rise to this action occurred in Owasso, Tulsa County, Oklahoma,

7. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper pursuant to 12 0. S. § 2004(f). Venue is properly laid pursuant to 12 0.5. § 133, 134.

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

8. Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Such charge was filed within three hundred (300) days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. Plaintiff received her Notice of Right to Sue Letter and this case was filed less than 90 days after the receipt of the Right to Sue Letter,

III. FACTS

9. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant on or about February 3, 2010, when she notified her supervisor, Sammi Alford, of her pregnancy. After reporting her pregnancy, Defendant began to discriminate against the Plaintiff This discrimination created a hostile work environment for the Plaintiff.

10. On or about February 4, 2010, Plaintiff suffered from complications of her pregnancy for which she sought treatment at an emergency room facility and was immediately admitted to the hospital.

11. Plaintiff returned to work on February 8, 2010, and was told by her supervisor that she needed a doctor’s release in order to return to work. Plaintiff obtained said release on February 8, 2010, and brought it to her employer that same day.

12. Plaintiff notified her supervisor, Sammi Alford, of the complications with her pregnancy and requested intermittent medical leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for her illness and associated appointments needed as a result of the complications from pregnancy. Plaintiff was told she must first exhaust her available personal time for fliture appointments, but would not be allowed to make up any extra time off needed for said appointments that Plaintiffs accrued time off did not cover.

13. On or about May 10, 2010, Plaintiff contacted a member of Human Resources direct to apply for FMLA and this representative scheduled an appointment for her the next day, May 11, 2010, at 3:00 p.m. Before that meeting could occur, Defendant cancelled her FMLA meeting and subsequently fired Plaintiff on that date. The substantial motivation for such firing was the Plaintiffs pregnancy and making a request for leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I

Pregnancy Discrimination, Hostile Environment & Retaliation

14. Plaintiff due to her status as a pregnant woman is protected by the federal law.

15. The actions complained of by the Plaintiff and perpetrated. by the Defendant is a direct violation of federal laws protecting pregnant women.

COUNT 2

Violations of OADA

16. Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act 25 O.S. § 1101 et. seq. sets forth a clear and unequivocal public policy regarding discrimination in employment in Oklahoma

17. The conduct complained of by the Plaintiff and perpetrated by the Defendant is a direct violation of the OADA.

COUNT 3

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

18. The Defendant’s actions throughout the relevant periods were both intentionai andlor reckless; and further were of an extreme and outrageous nature.

19. Plaintiff suffered and experienced emotional distress because of Defendant’s actions and such distress was severe.

COUNT 4

Violations of Family Medical Leave Act

20. Defendant is an employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. §2611, in that all relevant times to the filing of this cause of action, Defendant has employed in excess of fifty (50) employees, during each of twenty (20) or more calendar workweeks in the current preceding calendar year.

21. Plaintiff was an emp’oyee as defined by 29 U.S.C. §2611, in that she was employed with the Defendant in excess of twelve (12) months prior to the requesting leave.

22. Plaintiff requested leave under FMLA.

23. Plaintiffs absence of reporting to work was protected by 29 U.S.C. §2612.

24. Defendant subsequently interfered with Plaintiffs FMLA rights and retaliated against Plaintiff because of her need to be off work and wrongfuHy terminated her. This interference and retaliation was a clear, direct, and substantial violation of 29 U.S.C. §2612.

25. The events described herein constitute a clear, substantial, and egregious violation of 29 U.S.C. §2612.

26. As a result of the aforementioned violation, Defendant hereby injured Plaintiff, depriving her of having exercised rights and privileges of employment, for her having taken time due to a serious health condition, Plaintiff has suffered, among other things, damages in the form of back pay, front pay, loss of consortium, emotional distress and liquidated damages.

IV. DAMAGES

27. As a result of the aforementioned violations, Defendant hereby injured Plaintiff, causing actual and consequential damages. Further, the acts of Defendant were intentional, reckless and done without regard to the rights of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the form of back pay, front pay, consequential damages (including but not limited to emotional distress damages), punitive and liquidated damages.

Plaintiff sought a judgment over and against the Defendant for actual, compensatory and punitive damages in the amount in excess of $10,000 and for all other relief this Court deems just and proper including interest at the statutory rate, reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Defendant responded by giving notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Defendant EAN Services, LLC has this date filed with the Court Clerk in the United States District Court in and for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in Case No. 12-CV-286-GKF-FHM, styled Tanya E. Davis, Plaintiff v. EAN Services, LLC, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and Enterprise Leasing Company — Southwest, Defendants, its Notice of Removal, together with copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served and filed in the above-captioned action.

Outcome: Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice as to Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and Enterprise Leasing Company-Southwest.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: