Hill v. Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority
5:25-cv-00522
W.D. Okla.Jul 3, 2025Background
- Sharita Hill, a former employee of the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (OMMA), alleged she was terminated for whistleblowing and due to age discrimination after reporting conflicts of interest and OMMA policy violations.
- Hill originally filed her lawsuit in Oklahoma state court; the case was removed to federal court based on the presence of federal claims.
- Her claims included (1) a state-law Burk tort (public policy wrongful discharge), (2) Title VII retaliation, and (3) age discrimination under the ADEA.
- Defendant (State of Oklahoma ex rel. OMMA) moved to dismiss the federal claims, arguing lack of protected activity under Title VII and sovereign immunity from ADEA claims.
- The federal court addressed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, then declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim, remanding it to state court.
- Plaintiff’s counsel was admonished for filing a response containing inaccurate/nonexistent case citations, apparently generated by AI, without proper certification or disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII Retaliation (protected activity) | Reporting ethics/conflicts/financial misconduct is protected activity under Title VII | Such conduct is not protected by Title VII | Dismissed; activity not covered by Title VII |
| ADEA Claim (Eleventh Amendment/Sovereign Immunity) | State waived immunity by removing case to federal court | Sovereign immunity from liability not waived by removal | Dismissed; immunity bars claim |
| Request for Leave to Amend | Should be freely granted if claims are dismissed | No formal motion; no basis or facts given | Denied; insufficient grounds/formalities |
| Retention of State-Law Claim | No objection (implied); merits should be addressed | Should be remanded if federal claims dismissed | Remanded to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) (Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity under the ADEA)
- Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 611 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2010) (Rule 12(b)(1) standards for facial attacks on jurisdiction)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (plausibility and specificity requirements for complaints)
- Pettigrew v. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 722 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2013) (Eleventh Amendment as a jurisdictional bar)
- Calderon v. Kan. Dep't of Social and Rehab. Servs., 181 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 1999) (formal motion requirement for leave to amend)
- Bright v. Univ. of Okla. Bd. of Regents, 705 F. App’x 768 (10th Cir. 2017) (removal does not waive sovereign immunity from liability)