Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 11-13-2013
Case Style: Vickie Checotah v. Inverness Village
Case Number: CJ-2012-6031
Judge: Dana Kuehn
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Teresa Meinders Burkett, Melinda Louise Kirk and Chris M. Warzecha
Description: Vickie Checotah sued Inverness Village on a wrongful termination theory claiming:
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
2. Defendant is a domestic not for profit corporation doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
4. As such, this action lies properly in the District Court of Tulsa County, as the unlawful employment practices complained of herein occurred within Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and Defendant conducts regular business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
FACTS COMMON TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
5. Plaintiff began working for Defendant in 2008 as a housekeeper.
6. During her tenure with Defendant, Plaintiff suffered an on the job injury to her shoulder, a torn rotator cuff arising out of and in the scope of her employment.
7. Plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim to receive benefits related to her on the job injury.
8. Plaintiff began receiving Total Temporary Disability (TTD) benefits in January of 2011.
9. Plaintiff was scheduled to have surgery to repair the injuries to her shoulder in April of 2011.
10. Plaintiff’s physician(s) informed her that she would have a lifting restriction of three (3) pounds subsequent to her surgery.
11. Plaintiff informed Defendant of the work restrictions that she would have subsequent to her surgery.
12. Defendant informed Plaintiff that is she was unable to return within two weeks from her surgery with no restrictions her employment would be terminated.
13. Thereafter, when Plaintiff could not meet Defendant’s demands, her employment was terminated.
14. Defendant never offered Plaintiff any light duty to accommodate her physician’s order and work restrictions or allowed her time off of work to recuperate.
15. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim and in violation of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act.
WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 85 O.S. 341
16. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if realleged.
17. While employed with Defendant, Plaintiff sustained an accidental injury to her shoulder arising out of and in the scope of her employment.
18. As a result of this injury, Plaintiff filed a worker’s compensation claim.
19. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment after she exercised her rights under the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act, 85 O.S. § 301, et seq.
20. This act of termination violates the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 85, § 341.
21. As a result of this wrongful termination, Plaintiff has suffered considerable damages including, but limited to, loss of medical benefits, lost wages and other actual damages in excess of $75,000.00.
22. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages pursuant to 85 O.S. § 341(E). WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant her the relief sought including, but not limited to, actual and punitive damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), back pay and lost benefits, compensatory damages for mental anguish, pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary loss, reasonable attorneys fees, injunctive relief, and all other relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
Defendant appeared and answered as follows:
1. In response to Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Inverness is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations related to the residence of Plaintiff and therefore denies the same.
2. In response to Paragraph 2 of the Petition, Inverness admits the allegation contained therein.
3. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Petition, Inverness admits the allegation contained therein.
4. In response to Paragraph 4 of the Petition, Inverness admits the action properly brought brought in Tulsa County; however, it denies the remaining allegations.
FACTS COMMON TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
5. In response to Paragraph 5 of the Petition, Inverness admits Plaintiff began working for Inverness in 2008.
6. Tn response to Paragraph 6 of the Petition, Inverness admits Plaintiff’s left shoulder was injured while on-the-job.
7. In response to Paragraph 7 of the Petition, Inverness admits Plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim related to her on-the-job injury referenced in Paragraph 6 of this Answer.
8. Tn response to Paragraph 8 of the Petition, Inverness is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted and therefore denies the same.
9. In response to Paragraph 9 of the Petition, Inverness admits it was aware that Plaintiff was scheduled to have surgery on her left shoulder in April 2011.
10. In response to Paragraph 10 of the Petition, Inverness is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted and therefore denies the same.
11. In response to Paragraph 11 of the Petition, Inverness is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted and therefore denies the same.
12. In response to Paragraph 12 of the Petition, Inverness is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted and therefore denies the same.
13. In response to Paragraph 13 of the Petition, Inverness admits Plaintiff was terminated; however, it denies all remaining allegations.
14. In response to Paragraph 14 of the Petition, denies the allegations asserted therein.
15. In response to Paragraph 15 of the Petition, Inverness denies the allegations asserted therein.
WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 85 O.S. 341
16. In response to Paragraph 16 of the Petition, Inverness adopts previous responses to Plaintiff’s allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set forth herein and incorporates the same by reference.
17. In response to Paragraph 17 of the Petition, Inverness admits Plaintiff sustained an on-the-job injury to her left shoulder.
18. In response to Paragraph 18 of the Petition, Inverness admits Plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim as a result of the on-the-job injury to her left shoulder.
19. In response to Paragraph 19 of the Petition, Inverness denies the allegations asserted.
20. In response to Paragraph 20 of the Petition, Inverness denies the allegations asserted.
21. In response to Paragraph 21 of the Petition, Inverness denies the allegations asserted.
22. In response to Paragraph 22 of the Petition, Inverness denies the allegations asserted.
DEFENSES
1. Some or all of Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Inverness.
2. All actions taken by Inverness with respect to Plaintiff were in good faith, nondiscriminatory and legitimate.
3. Plaintiff failed to reasonably mitigate her damages.
4. Any damages suffered by Plaintiff are a result of her own conduct and in no way were caused by or attributed to Inverness.
5. Inverness reserves the right to amend, supplement or change any defenses as discovery proceeds.
WHEREFORE, Inverness prays: (a) that judgment be granted in its favor and against Plaintiff on the claims asserted in the Petition; (b) that Plaintiff take nothing by reason thereof; (c) that Inverness be awarded its costs of defending this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees; and (d) any other and further relief be afforded to Inverness that is just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: