EDWARDS v. ANDREWS
2016 OK 107
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Ward (Robert Drew Bowers) is a disabled adult requiring 24-hour care; his mother (Edwards) was appointed guardian of his person and property in 2004 and hires caregivers for his private residence.
- Two domestic caretakers, Sizemore (hired 2010) and Garrett (hired 2012), performed personal-care and household tasks for Ward.
- Sizemore filed a discrimination charge with the Oklahoma Attorney General alleging disability discrimination and identifying Garrett as a supporting witness; Edwards terminated both employees after receiving the complaint.
- The Attorney General filed a Petition to Enforce the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act on behalf of Sizemore and Garrett; the workers intervened.
- Edwards moved for summary judgment arguing (1) a natural person (guardian) is not an "employer" under the Act and (2) domestic service employment is excluded from the Act; the trial court denied the motion.
- Edwards sought original jurisdiction in the Oklahoma Supreme Court to prohibit the district court from proceeding; the Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction and issued a writ of prohibition, directing dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a natural person (guardian/employer) falls within the Act's definition of "employer" | Edwards: a natural person is excluded from the statutory definition of "employer" so she cannot be sued under the Act | AG/Sizemore: the workers are employees and seek remedies under the Act against the person who hired/paid them | Held: A "person" or "individual" (natural person) is excluded from the Act's definition of "employer" (section 1301(1)(a)); Edwards immune from employment-discrimination suit |
| Whether domestic-service employment falls within the Act's employment-discrimination provisions | Edwards: section 1302(B) excludes domestic service employment from the Act's prohibitions on discriminatory practices in employment | AG/Sizemore: sought remedies under Article III (employment discrimination) despite domestic-service context | Held: The Act excludes domestic-service employment from Article III remedies; trial court erred by not dismissing |
| Whether Article VI's prohibition on retaliation provides an independent remedy for employees | Edwards: Article VI prohibits retaliation but does not provide a remedy; no monetary relief available under that provision | AG/Sizemore: relied on Article VI retaliation prohibition and sought employment remedies under Article III | Held: Article VI(1601) prohibits retaliation but supplies no individual monetary remedy; Article III provides remedies for employment discrimination, and Article VI was intended for non-employment contexts |
| Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court may review denial of summary judgment via original action when immunity is asserted | Edwards: McLin exception permits original review of qualified-immunity-like claims | Respondent: generally appellate review not available for denial of summary judgment | Held: McLin exception applies; original jurisdiction appropriate to decide immunity issue and grant writ of prohibition |
Key Cases Cited
- McLin v. Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (1990 OK 74) (state supreme court may review trial-court decisions denying qualified-immunity-type protections via original action)
- Rowan v. Rowan, 523 P.2d 1068 (1974 OK 66) (general rule limiting review of trial court orders overruling summary judgment)