CJ-2026-1660 - Renita K. Meadows v. Integris Health Edmond, Inc.

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t just a story about a nurse who got hurt on the job and then got fired. No, no — this is a full-blown workplace thriller starring a hospital allegedly weaponizing bureaucracy, a supervisor caught on accidental speakerphone calling an injured employee “pathetic,” and a woman who just wanted to come back to work in a way that wouldn’t re-injure her surgically repaired hip. And instead of getting help? She got a termination voicemail — and a lawsuit that’s now demanding $150,000. Welcome to the petty civil court circus, folks. Grab your popcorn and a heating pad, because this one’s got it all: medical drama, HR incompetence, and a passive-aggressive phone call that could’ve been ripped from a soap opera.

Renita K. Meadows wasn’t looking to burn down the system. She was a Patient Care Technician at Integris Health Edmond, Inc., doing the kind of thankless, physically grueling work that keeps hospitals running — lifting patients, moving equipment, and generally using her body as a human forklift. She’d been on the job since April 2024, doing her thing, until August 16 of that year, when she injured her right hip during a patient transfer. Classic on-the-job injury. Nothing glamorous, just the kind of thing that happens when you’re doing essential healthcare work. She reported it. She got treatment. She was placed on light duty — no heavy lifting, nothing over 15 pounds. Totally reasonable. But then, the plot thickened: an MRI in October revealed she’d torn her acetabular labrum — that’s the fancy cartilage ring in your hip socket, for those of us who didn’t go to med school — and surgery was recommended. So she had it. December 18, 2024. Recovery time. Physical therapy. The whole nine yards. By April 3, 2025, her doctor cleared her to return — but with new restrictions: no more than 10 pounds, no sitting all day, and absolutely no working on uneven ground or elevated surfaces. Basically, “don’t do anything that might make you fall over or reinjure your hip.” Sensible? Absolutely.

Here’s where things go off the rails. Her supervisor, Michele Bradshaw, calls her to say her restrictions have been approved — great news, right? — but then drops the bomb: the job they’re offering her is mostly sedentary. Which, hello, her doctor just said she can’t do sedentary work. That’s like offering a fish a bicycle. It makes no sense. So Renita, being the reasonable adult she is, asks if she can work 8-hour shifts instead of the standard 12-hour ones. Not asking for a raise. Not demanding a parking spot. Just a slightly shorter day to accommodate her healing body. A request so mild, it barely qualifies as a boundary. But instead of saying, “Sure, let’s figure this out,” her supervisor refers her back to Workers’ Compensation — which, as the filing helpfully notes, is not the department responsible for handling disability accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That’s HR’s job. But HR? Oh, HR was busy playing detective.

Because here’s the juiciest twist: right after their call, the supervisor accidentally calls Renita back. And Renita? She hears her supervisor muttering to someone — probably thinking the line was dead — that it was “pathetic” for Renita to ask for a shorter shift after being off work for her work-related injury. Let that sink in. The woman is recovering from surgery caused by her job, follows medical advice, and requests a minor schedule tweak — and her boss calls her pathetic behind her back. Renita speaks up, says she can hear her, and the supervisor panics and hangs up. Cue the record scratch. Renita reports this to HR — specifically to Alex Joiner, who’s supposed to be the voice of reason, the workplace peacekeeper. But instead of launching a compassionate accommodation process, Joiner goes full CSI: Edmond, demanding “evidence” and launching an “investigation” — not into the supervisor’s behavior, mind you, but into Renita’s request. No discussion. No interactive process. Just radio silence on the accommodation front.

Then comes the final act. On April 3, Integris allegedly emails Renita — at her work email, which she doesn’t have access to from home — telling her to return to work on April 7 and attend mandatory training on April 9. They know she can’t access that email. She told them back in December. But no alternative contact? No phone call? Nothing. So she never sees the message. Then, on April 9, at 12:47 PM — five minutes before that mandatory training starts — Alex Joiner leaves her a voicemail saying her employment is terminated. No warning. No meeting. No chance to explain. Just… fired. And later, the company tries to spin it as a voluntary resignation. Like, “Oh, you just didn’t show up, so we assumed you quit.” Sure, Jan.

Now, why is this in court? Because Renita isn’t buying it. She’s suing for three big reasons. First: retaliation. She says she got fired for filing a workers’ comp claim — which, by the way, is illegal. You can’t punish someone for getting medical care after a work injury. Second: punitive damages, because the behavior was so bad — so intentional, so reckless — that the court should slap the company with extra money to send a message. And third: disability discrimination, because Integris allegedly failed to give her a reasonable accommodation (like, say, an 8-hour shift) and straight-up ignored the legal requirement to have a conversation about it — the “interactive process” lawyers love to talk about. Basically, they didn’t just say no. They didn’t even say anything. They ghosted her on her legal rights.

So what does Renita want? $150,000 — half in compensatory damages (for lost wages, emotional distress, all that), and half in punitive damages (to punish Integris for being, well, terrible). Is that a lot? For a nurse who just wanted to come back to work without re-injuring her hip? Honestly? It’s not outrageous. Especially when you consider the alternative: letting hospitals think they can fire injured employees for asking for basic accommodations. That’s a precedent we do not want to set. And let’s be real — Integris is part of a major healthcare system. They’re not exactly scraping by.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the accidental phone call — though that’s peak reality TV gold. It’s the sheer lack of self-awareness. This is a hospital. A place that heals people. And yet, when one of their own employees gets hurt doing her job, they treat her like a burden. They don’t engage. They don’t accommodate. They don’t even pretend to care. They fire her via voicemail and try to rewrite history. And HR? More concerned with “evidence” than empathy. If this case teaches us anything, it’s that some institutions forget that the people who keep the lights on, the beds made, and the patients alive — they’re human too. So yeah. We’re rooting for Renita. Not just because she’s got a solid case, but because sometimes, justice means holding a hospital’s feet to the fire — especially when they’ve stepped way over the line.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Chanda Graham

Holloway Bethea & Others, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Renita K. Meadows individual
Rep: Holloway Bethea & Others, PLLC

Defendants

Integris Health Edmond, Inc. business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Retaliation in violation of Title 85A O.S. § 7	Plaintiff alleges retaliation by Defendant after filing a workers' compensation claim.
2	Punitive damages pursuant to the Oklahoma Administrative Workers' Compensation Act	Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for Defendant's alleged intentional and willful misconduct.
3	Titles I and V of the American with Disabilities Act - Interference (Individual Claim) and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act	Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability and discriminated against her based on her disability.

Petition Text

1,662 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RENITA K. MEADOWS Plaintiff, v. INTEGRIS HEALTH EDMOND, INC. an Oklahoma Corporation Defendant. Case No.: 2026 - 1660 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION COMES NOW, Plaintiff herein, Renita K. Meadows, hereafter Plaintiff, and for her cause of action against Integris Health Edmond, Inc., hereafter Defendant, alleges, and states as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Renita K. Meadows is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Integris Health Edmond, Inc. is a domestic for profit Oklahoma Corporation registered to do business in the State of Oklahoma with the Oklahoma Secretary of State. 3. The claims alleged herein occurred in Edmond, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 4. As such, jurisdiction and venue are proper herein. 5. On or about April 9, 2025, Defendant terminated Renita K. Meadows' employment in violation of Title 85A O.S. § 7, the Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, 25 O.S. § 1101, et seq. 6. Ms. Meadows exhausted her administrative remedies at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a Notice of Right to sue on or about December 28, 2025. (See Exhibit A). This Petition is being filed within 90 days of Ms. Meadows’ receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue. 7. From April 8, 2024, to April 9, 2025, Defendant Employed Renita Meadows as a Patient Care Technician. 8. August 16, 2024, Ms. Meadows suffered an on-the-job injury to her right hip while assisting with a patient transfer. She was placed on light duty pushing/pulling, lifting or carrying with a limit of 15 pounds. 9. Ms. Meadows was still treating and in physical therapy when an October 10, 2024, MRI revealed an anterior superior acetabular labrum tear. 10. Due to the labrum tear, Ms. Meadows was informed on October 31, 2024, that surgery was an option to correct the ongoing issue. Ms. Meadows was still allowed to work light duty throughout this process. 11. Ms. Meadows’ had surgery December 18, 2024. She was eventually released to return to light duty work April 3, 2025, with weight limitations of 10 pounds. She was also restricted from “primarily sitting or sedentary work” and “working on uneven surface[s] or elevated heights.” 12. April 3, 2025, Ms. Meadows' supervisor, Michele Bradshaw, called to advise her that her work restrictions were approved. However, the work that Defendant planned to return Ms. Meadows to was mostly sedentary and, as such, in direct contravention of her medical restrictions. 13. In light of this fact, Ms. Meadows asked if she could work 8-hour shifts rather than 12-hour shifts as an accommodation and was referred back to Workers’ Compensation. Defendant did not engage in the interactive process, despite the fact that Workers Compensation is not responsible for administering the Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of Defendant. 14. After hanging up with her, Ms. Meadows’ supervisor accidentally, and unknowingly, called her back. Ms. Meadows overheard her supervisor saying it was pathetic for her to ask for a shorter shift when she had been off all that time due to her work-related injury. 15. Ms. Meadows spoke up and told her supervisor she could hear her. Her supervisor apologized and rushed off the phone. 16. Ms. Meadows immediately reported this interaction to Alex Joiner in Defendant’s human resources department. Ms. Meadows expressed her discomfort with her supervisor considering what she overheard with regard to her leave associated with her on-the-job injury. Ms. Meadows felt as if she were being targeted because her supervisor was changing her role upon return to work to one that was sedentary, in direct contravention of her work restrictions. 17. Ms. Meadows had previously complained to human resources about her supervisor, Michele Bradshaw, which human resources never addressed. 18. Rather than any discussion about Ms. Meadows’ request for an accommodation due to her work restrictions, Ms. Joiner focused on needing “evidence” so that she could conduct an “investigation.” She asked for no information from which she could begin the interactive process that should have been triggered upon Ms. Meadows’ request for an accommodation. 19. Ms. Meadows spoke up and told her supervisor she could hear her. Her supervisor apologized and rushed off the phone. 20. April 3, 2025, Ms. Meadows was allegedly sent an email from Defendant, apparently, informing her to return to work April 7, and to a mandatory Epic Training April 9, 2025. 21. However, Defendant sent that notice to Ms. Meadows’ work email address, which she did not have access to from home. Defendant was aware of this as Ms. Meadows informed her supervisor December 6, 2024. At that time, Ms. Meadows informed her supervisor that she would have to come into the office to address a payroll record issue because she could not access Defendant’s system from her home. 22. Due to the email address discrepancy, Ms. Meadows never received notice of her April 7 return to work date or the April 9, 2025, mandatory training. 23. Additionally, at 12:47pm, prior to the start of the mandatory training which was set to start at 1:30pm, Ms. Meadows was contacted by Alex Joiner, who left her a voice message terminating her employment. 24. Ms. Meadows never had the opportunity to return to work by 1:30pm because Ms. Joiner informed her that her employment had been terminated. Later, Ms. Joiner attempted to frame Ms. Meadows’ wrongful discharge as a voluntary resignation. COUNT I Retaliation in violation of Title 85A O.S. § 7 Oklahoma Administrative Workers Compensation Act COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Renita Meadows, and for her First Cause of Action incorporates the allegations set forth above and further asserts: 25. Plaintiff filed a claim and received treatments for an injury that occurred while she was performing work in the course and scope of her employment with Defendant, pursuant to Title 85A, Oklahoma Statutes. 26. Plaintiff’s actions in filing a Worker’s Compensation claim were in good faith. 27. Plaintiff’s supervisor had a problem with the time Ms. Meadows was off work due to her on-the-job injury and refused to discuss a modified work schedule for Plaintiff as a reasonable accommodation. 28. Defendant’s actions were unreasonable and in violation of 85A O.S. § 7. 29. Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff to suffer damages. 30. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer: a. Financial losses; b. Embarrassment and loss of reputation; and, c. Physical and mental pain and suffering. 31. Defendant, acting through its agents, servants and employees, committed the tortious act of wrongful discharge against Plaintiff, Renita Meadows. 32. Plaintiff, Renita Meadows, seeks recovery from the Defendant for an amount in excess of the amount that is required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, costs of this action, attorney’s fees and interest and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II Punitive damages pursuant to the Oklahoma Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Renita Meadows, and for her Third Cause of Action incorporates the allegations set forth above and further asserts: 33. That the actions of the Defendants were intentional, willful and wanton and constitute wrongful discharge in violation of public policy for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary or punitive damages. 34. That the actions and wrongful conduct of the Defendants were of such a nature that Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary or punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks recovery from the Defendants for an amount in excess of the amount that is required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, costs of this action, attorney’s fees and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including but not limited to, court costs, attorney’s fees and interest. COUNT III Titles I and V of the American with Disabilities Act – Interference (Individual Claim) and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Renita Meadows, and for her Third Cause of Action incorporates the allegations set forth above and further asserts: 35. Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111, et seq., and its implementing regulation, 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, requires covered employers, such as Defendant, to provide reasonable accommodations to otherwise qualified employees with disabilities. 36. Reasonable accommodation includes, but is not limited to, work schedule adjustments when necessary for an employee to perform the essential functions of the employee’s position. 37. Ms. Meadows’ request to change her work schedule to accommodate her physical limitations was a protected activity. 38. Understanding that her supervisor already had a problem with her worker’s compensation leave interfered with Ms. Meadows’ pursuit of a schedule change as reasonable accommodation. 39. Human Resources was aware of Ms. Meadows’ supervisor’s inappropriate comments indicating her displeasure with Ms. Meadows’ need for leave due to her work-related injury as well as her accommodation request and did nothing. 40. Renita Meadows was an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who, in 2025, could no longer perform the essential functions of her position without restrictions to accommodate her on-the-job injury. 41. Defendant failed to provide Ms. Meadows a reasonable accommodation, including but not limited to, a work schedule adjustment, failing entirely to engage in the interactive process and interfering with her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42. Defendant’s conduct as described in this Complaint constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Titles I and V of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111, et seq., and its implementing regulation, 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, as well as the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, 25 O.S. § 1350. 43. Plaintiff, Renita Meadows, seeks recovery from the Defendant for an amount in excess of the amount that is required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, costs of this action, attorney's fees and interest and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Renita Meadows, prays for an award of special and general compensatory damages against Defendant in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), for an award of punitive damages in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), costs and attorney's fees of this action and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, HOLLOWAY BETHEA & OTHERS, PLLC 3035 N.W. 63rd, Suite 102N Oklahoma City, OK 73116 Telephone: (405) 246-0600 Facsimile: (405) 810-4080 [email protected] [email protected] By: ______________________ CHANDA GRAHAM, OBA # 17809 KENYATTA R. BETHEA, OBA #18650 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED