Conner v. Oklahoma State of
5:22-cv-01095
W.D. Okla.Sep 29, 2023Background
- Conner was OESC’s General Counsel and Chief of Staff and was over 60 when OESC terminated her on or about November 10, 2021 without providing a reason.
- Her position remained after her termination; she alleges she was qualified and had no discipline or performance issues.
- Conner alleges OESC Director Zumwalt made ageist comments and asked Conner to fire "old guards," suggesting an age-based targeting of older employees.
- Conner reported a state vendor (Mark Davis) to HR for making "inappropriate remarks" to younger employees and complained again on November 8, 2021; two days later she was terminated. Davis was later hired in positions connected to OESC.
- Conner sued alleging Title VII sex-plus-age discrimination and Title VII retaliation, plus state-law claims; OESC moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court granted the motion: dismissed federal claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII sex-plus-age discrimination | Conner says she was fired as an "older female"—Zumwalt targeted older female employees and Conner was hired as a cover for firings. | OESC argues the complaint lacks facts plausibly showing discrimination "because of sex" (as opposed to age); sex-plus claims must plead sex-based disparate treatment. | Dismissed: complaint fails to plausibly allege sex-based discrimination; sex-plus-age claim insufficient and dismissed without prejudice. |
| Title VII retaliation (opposition clause) | Conner says she opposed sexual harassment by reporting vendor’s inappropriate remarks to HR shortly before her termination, creating causal link. | OESC contends allegations are too vague—no specifics about the remarks or complaints—so Conner cannot show an objectively reasonable belief that the conduct violated Title VII. | Dismissed: allegations do not plausibly show Conner held an objectively reasonable belief that she opposed unlawful discrimination; retaliation claim dismissed. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Conner asks to proceed on state-law claims if federal claims fail. | OESC notes federal claims are basis for removal and now dismissed, leaving no federal question. | Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses state-law claims (without prejudice). |
| Leave to amend | Conner requested leave to amend in briefing. | OESC urged dismissal; pointed to failure to propose an amended pleading. | Court did not grant leave sua sponte because no proposed amended complaint was filed as required by local rules; plaintiff may file a proper motion to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 706 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2013) (12(b)(6) standard—accept well-pleaded facts as true)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (McDonnell Douglas framework informs plausibility analysis on a motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions need factual support)
- Frappied v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk, LLC, 966 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2020) (sex-plus-age claim requires showing discrimination "because of sex")
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Reznik v. inContact, Inc., 18 F.4th 1257 (10th Cir. 2021) (objective-reasonableness requirement for protected opposition in retaliation claims)
- Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2005) (prima facie elements are context-dependent; logical connections required)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation standard does not create a general civility code)
- EEOC v. Flasher Co., 986 F.2d 1312 (10th Cir. 1992) (Title VII requires intentional discrimination)