Polk v. TEK Systems, Inc., 4:12-cv-00557

Polk worked for TEKsystems (TEK) starting May 23, 2005, initially as a recruiter and later as an account manager.
TEK provided an at-will employment policy with a discretionary progressive discipline framework.
Polk did not disclose a disability during hiring and there is evidence of prior mental-health diagnoses (depression, anxiety, ADHD) from 1999 onward.
Polk was repeatedly warned for unlawful or unprofessional conduct and poor performance, including client relationship issues with ConocoPhillips.
TEK terminated Polk on March 25, 2011 for rude/unprofessional behavior, citing harm to TEK-Conoco relations and client procedures.
Polk alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and OADA and asserted an Oklahoma intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; the case was removed to federal court for federal-question jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Polk is disabled under the ADA	Polk asserts depression, anxiety, and ADHD qualify as disabilities.	Depression/anxiety/ADHD are not per se disabilities; no substantial limitation shown.	Genuine dispute exists; plaintiff may be disabled under the ADA given evidence of limitations in major life activities.
Whether TEK knew of Polk's disability and terminated him because of it	TEK was aware via medical history and Izett's statements; termination due to disability.	No evidence TEK viewed Polk as permanently disabled; termination for work-related issues.	Not precluded at summary judgment; question of pretext for disability discrimination remains.
Whether TEK's proffered reason for termination is pretextual	Disciplinary process not consistently followed; comparators show disparate treatment.	Employer had legitimate non-discriminatory reason (harm to client relationships); policy discretionary.	No genuine dispute; defendant's reason not shown to be pretextual; ADA claim fails.
Whether Polk's Oklahoma intentional infliction of emotional distress claim survives	Unaddressed by plaintiff; claims extreme conduct.	No outrageous conduct shown.	Summary judgment for TEK on the tort claim.

Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 1997) (ADA circumstantial framework; burden shifting to show pretext when applicable)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden of proof)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine issue of material fact standard)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (one-sided evidence permitted; standard for summary judgment)
Smothers v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc., 740 F.3d 530 (10th Cir. 2014) (ADA element burden when proving disability)
Zamora v. Elite Logistics, Inc., 478 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (prima facie case and pretext framework in ADA)
Swackhammer v. Sprint/United Management Co., 493 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (similarly-situated employee concept for pretext)
Stinnett v. Safeway, Inc., 337 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2003) (pretext and discrimination analysis)
Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2005) (pretext framework for disability discrimination)
Berry v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 490 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2007) (temporary impairment not enough for disability)
EEOC v. Flasher Co., Inc., 986 F.2d 1312 (10th Cir. 1992) (defendant's burden for legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)