Date: 07-06-2013

Case Style: Audrey Striplin v. University of Tulsa

Case Number: CJ-2012-96

Judge: Mark Barcus

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Brendan M. McHugh

Defendant's Attorney: J. Patrick Cremin and Johnathan Louis Rogers

Description: Audrey Striplin sued University of Tulsa on a wrongful termination theory claiming:

1. That Plaintiff is an individual and former employee of Defendant who began employment with Defendant in August, 2010.

2. That TU is Domestic Not-for-Profit Corporation in the State of Oklahoma, located in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, where the Plaintiff was employed.

3. That in August, 2011, Plaintiff sustained an on-the-job injury and as a result, availed herself of her rights under the Oklahoma Worker’s Compesnation Act, 850.S. §1 etseq. (Act), including seeking medical treatment.

4. That Plaintiff also sustained an on-the-job injury on or about November 30, 2011, and availed herself of rights under the Act.

5. That Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant on or about December 2, 2011.

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

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

8. Defendant 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 Defendant.

WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Audrey Striplin, respectfully requests an award of actual damages in excess of $75,000.00, an award of punitive damages in excess of $10,000.00, for all costs of this action, and for any and other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

The University of Tulsa appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant admits that it employed Plaintiff but denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Plaintiffs Petition.

2. Defendant admits that it is a not-for-profit corporation in the State of Oklahoma and that it is located in Tulsa County, Oklahoma but denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Plaintiffs Petition.

3. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition.

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

5. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Petition.

7. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Petition.

8. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Petition. Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiff is entitled to receive any punitive damages from it whatsoever.

9. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any damages from it whatsoever including, but not limited to, those set forth in the “WHEREFORE” Paragraph of Plaintiffs Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

10. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Second Affirmative Defense

11. All actions taken by Defendant with respect to Plaintiff were taken in good faith and based upon legitimate business needs.

Third Affirmative Defense

12. Any actions taken by Defendant, with respect to Plaintiff, do not rise to the level to j ustif the imposition of punitive damages.

Fourth Affirmative Defense

13. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages, if any.

Fifth Affirmative Defense

14. Plaintiffs employment with Defendant was “at-will.” Sixth Affirmative Defense

15. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole, or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that judgment be entered in its favor, that Plaintiff take nothing and that Defendant be awarded its costs and fees incurred in this litigation.

Outcome: Plaintiff Audrey Striplin hereby dismisses with prejudice all daims against Defendant University of Tulsa in the above-styled action with prejudice to refihing.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: