The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DORETTA LETBETTER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 22-CV-0371-CVE-CDL
)
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT )
NO. 1 OF TULSA COUNTY, STATE OF )
OKLAHOMA, a/k/a Tulsa Public Schools, )
)
)
Defendant. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and Combined Brief in
Support (Dkt. # 5). Plaintiff filed this case alleging a single claim that defendant Independent School
District No. 1 of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma a/k/a Tulsa Public Schools (TPS) violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (ADA), and she seeks compensatory and
punitive damages. Defendant argues that punitive damages are unavailable against a public entity
or political subdivision under the ADA. Dkt. # 5. Plaintiff has not responded to defendant’s motion
and plaintiff’s response deadline was September 15, 2022.
Plaintiff alleges that she was hired by TPS as a pre-kindergarten teacher beginning in
September 2000. Dkt. # 2-2, at 3. She claims that she requested time off in September 2020 for
medical treatment for her disabilities of bipolar and anxiety disorders, and she disclosed to TPS that
she suffered from these conditions at that time. Id. It appears that she received time off as she
requested, but she claims that TPS suspended her from work in May 2021 following allegations that
she posed a child safety risk. Id. Plaintiff was transferred to another school for the following school
year, even though she claims an investigation cleared her of any wrongdoing, and she was assigned
to teach sixth grade. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff claims that she was uncomfortable teaching a higher grade
level, and she requested to return to her former school and grade level as an accommodation for her
disabilities. Id. at 4. Plaintiff’s request was denied and she claims that she was “forced” to retire in
November 2021. Id. Plaintiff filed this case in Tulsa County District Court alleging discrimination
and retaliation claims under the ADA, and it appears that she could also be alleging a claim under
a failure to accommodate theory. Id. at 4-5.
Defendant argues that punitive damages are not available against a government agency or
political subdivision under the ADA. Dkt. # 5, at 2. The law is clearly established that punitive
damages may not be recovered under the ADA against a government agency or political subdivision.
42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1). School districts are considered political subdivisions as a matter of
Oklahoma law. OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 152(11); Hauck v. Putnam City Independent School District
1001, 2022 WL 3654749 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 24, 2022). Therefore, Oklahoma school districts are not
subject to punitive damages for claims brought against them under the ADA. Sutherlin v.
Independent School Dist. No. 40 of Nowata County, Oklahoma, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1270 (N.D.
Okla. 2013); Glascow v. Board of Education, District I-002, 2005 WL 8157782 (W.D. Okla. Apr.
15, 2005). The docket sheet shows that plaintiff received electronic service of defendant’s motion
to dismiss, and the joint status report (Dkt. # 9) also shows that plaintiff was aware of the pending
motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to dismiss and the argument raised by
TPS is supported by well established law. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 5) is granted, and
plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on her ADA claim.
2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and
Combined Brief in Support (Dkt. # 5) is granted, and plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages is
dismissed.
DATED this 24th day of October, 2022.
Chiuay Le
By lee
CLAIRE V.EAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE