Date: 06-06-2013

Case Style: Norma Mata v. Advantage Resourcing, Inc. d/b/a Advantage Staffing

Case Number: CJ-2012-95

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Brenda Michael McHugh

Defendant's Attorney: Sean C. Urich, Mack J. Morgan, III, Kimberly Beth Gordon Denise Cotter Villani

Description: Norma Mata sued Advantage Resourcing, Inc. d/b/a Advantage Staffing on a wrongful termination theory claiming:

1. That Advantage is a foreign corporation with numerous locations in Oklahoma, including the facility Plaintiff worked at in Tulsa, Oklahoma, under the name Advantage Staffing, a trade name forAdvantage Resourcing, Inc.

2. That Plaintiff is an individual and former employee of Advantage who began employment with Advantage in March of 2011.

3. That in August of 2011, Plaintiff sustained an on-the-job injury and as a result, availed herself of her rights under the Oklahoma Worker’s Compensation Act, 85 O.S. § 1 etseg, (the “Act”), including seeking medical treatment.

4. That in August of 2011, Advantage terminated Plaintiff.

5. That Advantage’stermination of Plaintiff was in retaliation for Plaintiff availing herself of her rights under the Act and as such, the availment of her rights was a significant motivating factor in her termination and the conduct of Advantage violates 85 O.S. § 5 & 6.

6. Plaintiff gives notice of her potential race discrimination claim. Plaintiff has not alleged such a claim but gives notice of such potential claim and states that she intends to conduct discovery over this issue to explore the propriety of such claim.

7. As a result of the conduct of Advantage, Plaintiff has sustained actual damages in excess of $75,000.00.

8. Advantage has acted with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and intentionally or with malice and as such, punitive damages in excess of $10,000.00 should be assessed against Advantage.

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Norma Mata respectfully requests an award of actual damages in excess of $75,000.00, an award of punitive damages in excess of$1 0,000.00, all costs of this action, and for any and further relief this Court deems just and proper.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

1.. Defendant admits it is a foreign corporation with locations in Oklahoma and tuft it doos business tinder the trade name Advantage Staffing. Defendant is without knowledge infornialion sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph I of Petition and the cleft demes the same.

2. Defendant admits it employed PlaiLgi IT and thtLt Plaintiff began her employment With Defendant in N1ai-eh of 2011. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to fort)) a belief as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Petition and therefore denies the same.

3. Defendant admits that Plaintiff sustained an on-the-job injury and SoLight medical attention. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining :il legations in Paragraph 3 of the Petition and therefore denies the same.

4. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Petition.

5. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Petition and speciuically denies it terminated Plaintiff in violation of Title 85 0.5. Sections 5 and 6.

6. Paragraph 6 of the Petition contains rio factual averments, so there is nothing for Defendant to admit or den’. Furihermore, unless Plaintiff follows all applicable procedures (hr filing a charge of discrimination, exhausts her administrative remedies, and properly lIes a lawsuit alleging a claim of discrimination, Defendant will object to any discovery relating to the alleged (or more accurately, the un-alleged) discrimination. Subject to and without waiving the loregoing, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Petition.

7. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Petition and tlirther denies Plaintiff is entitled to any damages.

8. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Petition and further denies Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

9. With respect to the prayer for judgment and relief following Paragraph 8, Defendant denies Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested.

II.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may he granted.

2. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

3. Some or all of PlaintifFs claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppcl. waiver. and/or rati I eat ion.

4. All of Defendant’s decisions and actions regarding PLaintiff were done in the exercise of proper managerial discretion, in good faith, and based on legitimate, nond iscri ni nato ry reasons.

5. Plaintiff has failed to take adequate steps to minimize, alter, reduce, mitigate, or otherwise diminish his damages, if any, with respect to the matters alleged in the Petition.

6. Defendant is not liable for punitive damages because neither Defendant, nor any of its employees sufficiently high in its corporate hierarchy, committed any act with malice or reckless int]i Iference to Plai itiffs state protected rights, or approved, authorized or ratified, or had actual knowledge, of any such acts.

7. Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested because Defendant’s alleged actiors were not oppressive, malicious, egregious, in bad faith, or in willful disregard to any of P Ia i nti ft’s leaul rights.

8. Plaintiffs alleged damages may be precluded iii whole or in part by the doctrine of after—acquired evidence.

9. With respect to some or all Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff has failed to timely and properly exhaust all administrative remedies.

10. Plaintiff has pled and filed this action in bad faith and therefore should be haired fi’om any recovery in this action.

11. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as may aji pear applicable during the course of this litigation.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respcctfhlly requests that Plaintiff take nothing asa result of the allegations made in the Petition; that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice to Plaintiff refiling same; and that Defendant he awarded its costs, attorney fees, and such other relief to which the Court deems it is justly entitled.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: