I just read in the Watonga Republican that my lawsuit against the City arising out of my employment and subsequent dismissal has been filed. The matter is now public record and the Petition can be read at the office of the County Court Clerk in Watonga.
A summary of the claim is as follows:
When Plaintiff
[Linda Barrett] was hired on or about May 16, 2011, Defendant’s representatives were aware that Plaintiff suffered from
cardiomyopathy (damage to her heart), but the condition did not affect the
performance of her duties for which she was hired. It was only after months of
threats, bullying and intimidation by her supervisor, that Plaintiff began suffering
from hypertension and sought medical care.
Plaintiff
received threats and endured a hostile work environment caused by the actions
of Defendant’s public officials because Plaintiff questioned possibly illegal
and/or unethical acts by those officials.
These
observed and reported acts included discrimination against members of the
public, violations of open meetings laws, violation of HIPPA laws, violation of Oklahoma Open Records Act, misuse of
City resources, failure to make required reports to state agencies, falsification
of records, and other violations of Oklahoma law.
. . . . . Plaintiff sought medical care for the condition she suffered as a result of the threats, bullying and intimidation by her supervisor and was advised by her physician to take time off from work to recover. Upon her return to work, Plaintiff sought to obtain the necessary Worker’s Compensation forms to file her claim for payment of medical expenses incurred, but was denied access to them by her supervisor. Other City employees were timely given the proper worker's compensation forms to complete, when requested, but Plaintiff was not given any such forms when she requested them.
{The following are editorial notes:
Workman's Compensation Code provides:
If accidentally injured or affected by cumulative trauma or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment, however slight [emphasis added], the
employee should notify the employer immediately. . . Unless notice is given to the employer or medical treatment is rendered within thirty (30) days of injury, any claim for compensation may be forever barred.
If accidentally injured or affected by cumulative trauma or an occupational disease, the employee may file a claim for compensation with the Workers' Compensation Court. Forms to file a compensation claim should be furnished by this employer . . .[emphasis added] .
An employee is required to give notice to an employer of any injury
[emphasis added].
.....
The City of Watonga employee handbook states: "Any employee injured on the job
shall report the injury immediately to his supervisor. Failure to report such injury might result in
a denial of benefits available to you under the Oklahoma Workers; Compensation
Act."
The OMAG paperwork tells the employer: "... the employer must report all injuries...it is best to let your CBR adjuster determine compensability of the claim." [emphasis added] . . . . .
The OMAG paperwork tells the employer: "... the employer must report all injuries...it is best to let your CBR adjuster determine compensability of the claim." [emphasis added] . . . . .
Ms. Nitzel arbitrarily decided that Plaintiff's injury was not a "compensable injury" and refused to provide the necessary documents to file a claim or refer Plaintiff to a physician.
END OF EDITORIAL NOTES.
END OF EDITORIAL NOTES.
Plaintiff
sustained an on-the-job injury that arose out of and in the course and scope of
her employment with
Defendant.
Plaintiff
informed her supervisor of the injury. Plaintiff obtained medical treatment for her on-the-job injury and thereafter caused to be instituted a proceeding under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
After Plaintiff filed her worker's compensation notice, she was given a "warning" letter by her supervisor setting forth a list of actions the supervisor wanted Plaintiff to "improve on". The letter
was in
retaliation for Plaintiff’s workers compensation filing and/or her
whistleblower activities, and had no basis in fact, but was designed to permit
a pretextual firing of
Plaintiff.
In
retaliation for asserting her statutory rights under Oklahoma’s Workers
Compensation law, Plaintiff
was discharged from her employment with the Defendant on or about May 15, 2012. At that time, Defendant refused to pay to Plaintiff her earned vacation pay.
Further,
Plaintiff was discharged because she witnessed unethical and possibly illegal activities on the
part of the City Clerk and the Mayor and reported to City Council members about
those matters.
Plaintiff was dismissed in retaliation for "whistleblower" actions
because she witnessed and
reported illegal and unethical acts by Defendant’s representatives and public
officials.
Further,
Plaintiff was discriminated and/ or retaliated against on the basis of a
disability.
Plaintiff was
dismissed from her employment because of a medical condition (hypertension) brought on by the
willful and illegal acts of Defendant’s representatives in causing a hostile work environment.
FIRST CLAIM FOR
RELIEF
(RETALIATORY
DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF 85 O.S. §§ 5 & 341)prohibiting an employer from
discharging an employee because she suffered a work-related injury, instituted
a proceeding, retained
an attorney for representation or filed a claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act
. . . .
Defendant
terminated Plaintiff because of one or more of these considerations.
The
aforementioned termination was in direct violation of 85 O.S. §§ 5 and/or 341.
The events described
herein constitute a clear, substantial, and egregious violation of 85 O.S. §§ 5
and/or 341, as
Plaintiff was terminated for exercising her rights under Title 85 of the
Oklahoma Statutes.
As a direct
and proximate result of Defendant’ willful violation of 85 O.S. §§ 5 and/or
341,Plaintiff has
suffered, and continues to suffer, loss of income, emotional distress, medical expenses and other compensatory
losses....
Pursuant to
85 O.S. §§ 6 and/or 341, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages; and to reinstatement to a comparable position with Defendant, or
to front pay in
lieu of reinstatement if there is evidence of continuing hostility.
SECOND CLAIM FOR
RELIEF
(STATE LAW OKLAHOMA ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT CLAIM)--
Oklahoma law prohibits disability discrimination and retaliation in the workplace (as set forth in the OADA, 25 O.S. § 1302, et. seq
Plaintiff
was, maliciously and in reckless disregard of her rights, discriminated against
in her employment by
Defendant on the basis of her disability and/or handicap, or in the alternative on the basis of
her perceived disability and/or handicap or her record of having said
disability.
Defendant ratified the acts of its agents and employees by failing to take
remedial action upon
notice by Plaintiff of the circumstances or by allowing the acts to occur after
receiving
actual or
constructive notice of those acts.
The
conduct complained of constitutes illegal discrimination and retaliation in violation of the
OADA, 25 O.S. § 1302, et. seq.
THIRD CLAIM FOR
RELIEF
(OKLAHOMA STATE
LAW BURK TORT CLAIM) -- Oklahoma
public policy prohibits discrimination and retaliation in the workplace against
whistleblowers who report violations of state law, and Oklahoma common law
permits an aggrieved
employee to bring a claim against an employer for permitting such
discrimination and retaliation.
Plaintiff was discriminated against due to whistleblower activity and
retaliated against during
her employment as prohibited by Oklahoma Public Policy.
Defendant ratified the acts of its agents and employees by failing to take remedial action upon notice by Plaintiff of the circumstances or by allowing the acts to occur after receiving
actual or
constructive notice of those acts.
The
conduct complained of constitutes illegal discrimination and retaliation in violation of
Oklahoma Public Policy, and gives rise to a tort claim under Oklahoma common
law.
JURY TRIAL
REQUESTED
No comments:
Post a Comment