Deshazer v. L&W Supply Corporation
5:23-cv-00045
W.D. Okla.Apr 17, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Curtis DeShazer, a Black man over 40, was employed as a CDL driver/crane operator and was terminated by Branch Manager Scott Thomas on or about June 29, 2021.
- Defendants (L&W Supply/ABC Supply and Thomas) gave shifting reasons for the termination: an allegedly missing $7,000 crane remote and driving citations; HR reported different dates/reasons to OESC and the EEOC.
- DeShazer alleges consistent positive performance reviews, pay increases, and that he did not lose or misplace the remote; a co-worker told Thomas the remote had been in the truck.
- DeShazer complained to HR in January 2021 about racial harassment and alleged disparate treatment (missed incentives, faulty truck assignments, lack of Black supervisors); HR spoke to Thomas who was dismissive.
- He also took medical leave and sought FMLA paperwork before his termination.
- Defendants moved to partially dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part: discrimination (race and age), retaliation (§ 1981 / Title VII), FMLA (against Thomas), and tort claims against Thomas survived; hostile work environment (§ 1981 / Title VII) was dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race and age discrimination (§ 1981, Title VII, ADEA) | DeShazer alleged membership in protected classes, qualification, termination, and that position remained; shifting reasons show pretext. | Complaint fails to plausibly allege discrimination / prima facie elements. | Survives 12(b)(6): allegations sufficient to state plausible claims. |
| Hostile work environment (§ 1981, Title VII) | Single use of the n-word overheard on speakerphone plus disparate treatment and complaints create an abusive environment. | Conduct was isolated / not pervasive or severe enough. | Dismissed without prejudice: allegations insufficient as a matter of law. |
| Retaliation (§ 1981, Title VII) | DeShazer engaged in protected opposition and suffered adverse action; temporal gap is explainable by pretext. | Temporal gap (~6 months) defeats causal inference absent other facts. | Survives 12(b)(6): plaintiff alleged additional facts to show pretext and causation. |
| FMLA claim (individual liability against Thomas) | Thomas, as branch manager, exercised control over employment and leave decisions and thus can be an "employer" under FMLA. | Individuals cannot be liable absent corporate responsibilities; Thomas not an employer. | Survives 12(b)(6): court applies economic-reality test and finds plausible allegations that Thomas qualifies as an employer. |
| Tortious interference / prospective economic advantage (Oklahoma law) | Thomas acted in bad faith and for personal motives (retaliation) in terminating DeShazer, not in employer's interest. | As an agent of the employer, Thomas cannot interfere absent acting contrary to employer interests and for personal gain. | Survives 12(b)(6): allegations minimally sufficient to state interference claims; close call but not dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (rule that plaintiff need not plead every element of a prima facie discrimination case)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pleading standard — allegations must give plausible notice)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir.) (some factual detail required to survive dismissal)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile work environment standard: severe or pervasive)
- Lounds v. Lincare, 812 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir.) (hostile work environment analysis and repeated racial slurs)
- Ford v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 45 F.4th 1202 (10th Cir.) (the n-word is a powerfully charged racial term that can support an environment claim)
- Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir.) (context on repeated epithets in hostile-work-environment claims)
- Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co., 181 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir.) (temporal proximity alone may be insufficient to infer causation)
- Proctor v. United Parcel Serv., 502 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir.) (use of pretext evidence to support retaliation causation)
- Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, 985 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir.) (standard for accepting factual allegations and drawing inferences on motions to dismiss)
- Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of African Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (but‑for causation standard for § 1981 claims)