CJ-2026-1511 - RICHARD MCCORMICK v. McALISTER OIL, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: getting fired while you’re on temporary disability is like being kicked out of the hospital mid-surgery because the doctor says your insurance paperwork is “taking too long.” And yet, here we are. In Oklahoma, a man named Richard McCormick claims his employer didn’t just let him go while he was healing from a torn ACL—he says they specifically canned him because he was hurt and dared to file a workers’ comp claim. That’s not just cold. That’s illegally cold.

Richard McCormick wasn’t some fly-by-night employee. He was hired in December 2021 by McAlister Oil, LLC—a Delaware-based company doing business in Oklahoma—as a Driver/Operator, which, if you’re picturing guys hauling fuel or equipment across rural highways, you’re probably not far off. He did his job, kept his nose clean, and by all accounts was just another blue-collar worker trying to make a living. Then, in April 2022, the company moved him to Heavener, Oklahoma—a small town near the Arkansas border where the biggest attractions are a Walmart and the annual Heavener Apple Festival. Not exactly a hotspot, but hey, work is work.

Then came September 2022. On the job, McCormick tore his ACL—ouch. That’s not a “walk it off” injury. That’s surgery, rehab, crutches, the whole nine yards. He did the right thing: reported it immediately, filed for workers’ compensation, and started receiving temporary total disability benefits. Translation: the state said, “You’re hurt, you can’t work, here’s some money while you heal.” Under Oklahoma law, that period can last up to 156 weeks—three whole years, if needed. McCormick wasn’t even at week 22 when things started to go sideways.

Here’s where it gets shady. In January 2023, while still recovering, McCormick checked in with HR about his status. Instead of a reassuring “get well soon,” he was told—verbatim—“do not worry about your job because it will not be there for you when you’re able to resume your duties.” Let that sink in. He hadn’t quit. He wasn’t fired yet. He was still receiving disability benefits, still under medical care, and his employer was already writing him off like a rusted-out truck. That’s not just bad bedside manner—that’s a potential crime.

Then, in March 2023, McCormick made what turned out to be a very expensive decision: he hired a lawyer. Not to sue—yet—but to help him navigate the workers’ comp system. Because, let’s face it, dealing with insurance and paperwork while recovering from knee surgery is like trying to defuse a bomb with oven mitts. But apparently, at McAlister Oil, hiring a lawyer is the corporate equivalent of ringing the dinner bell for retaliation.

Come May 2023, McCormick gets good news: his doctor clears him to return to work—with permanent restrictions, sure, but ones that still allow him to do his job. He calls HR, ready to come back, to get back in the driver’s seat—literally. And what does he get? A corporate cold shoulder. HR tells him, “Since you have legal representation, don’t contact us directly anymore.” Translation: we see your lawyer, and we raise you a wall of silence.

Then, in November 2023—over a year after his injury—McAlister Oil stops paying his disability benefits and tells him he can’t come back. Wait, what? He was still in his temporary disability period. He hadn’t maxed out his benefits. He hadn’t quit. He hadn’t been formally fired—until now. But the real kicker? When McCormick applied for unemployment, the company told the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission that he’d been terminated on February 28, 2023—over nine months before they actually cut off his benefits. And the reason? “His position could no longer be held with no return to work date known.” Which, sure, sounds reasonable—except he had a return date. He had communicated. And he was still in the legally protected disability window.

So why is this in court? Two big reasons, spelled out in Oklahoma law. First, it’s illegal—flat-out illegal—for an employer to fire someone just because they’re on temporary disability. That’s what McCormick’s first claim is about: absence-based termination. The law says you can’t boot someone for being hurt and getting benefits. Second, it’s also illegal to retaliate against someone for filing a workers’ comp claim or hiring a lawyer. That’s the second claim. And McAlister Oil allegedly did both—telling McCormick his job wasn’t waiting, ghosting him after he got legal help, cutting off benefits early, and retroactively firing him with a flimsy excuse that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Now, what does McCormick want? He’s seeking at least $75,000 in actual damages and another $75,000 in punitive damages—so $150,000 total, give or take. Is that a lot? For a guy who was making a driver’s wage, losing over a year of income, missing out on benefits, and dealing with medical recovery? Honestly? It’s not outrageous. The punitive damages are the spicy part—they’re not about reimbursing him, they’re about punishing the company for playing dirty. If the court agrees McAlister Oil broke the law on purpose, that $75k could be a slap on the wrist for a company that likely pulls in millions.

Here’s the thing we can’t stop thinking about: the sheer audacity of telling someone their job won’t be there while they’re still on legally protected leave. It’s like a hotel telling a guest, “Don’t worry about your reservation—we’re giving your room away while you’re still in the lobby with your suitcase.” And then charging them a cancellation fee. It’s not just unfair—it’s a direct middle finger to worker protections that exist for a reason. People get hurt on the job. That’s why we have workers’ comp. It’s not a loophole. It’s not a vacation. It’s a safety net. And when companies like McAlister Oil start cutting the strings because someone dares to use it? That’s how you end up with a lawsuit that’s equal parts tragic and infuriating.

Are we rooting for Richard McCormick? Absolutely. Not because he’s perfect, not because every detail is proven—but because if we let employers fire people for being injured and seeking help, we’ve turned the American workplace into a Hunger Games audition. You shouldn’t lose your job because your knee gave out on the job. That’s not “at-will employment.” That’s at-will bullying. And if Oklahoma’s courts uphold their own laws, McAlister Oil might just learn that you don’t mess with a man’s recovery—and you really don’t mess with his lawyer.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

JONATHAN M. IRWIN

GLASS & TABOR, LLP

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

RICHARD MCCORMICK individual
Rep: GLASS & TABOR, LLP

Defendants

McALISTER OIL, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	ABSENCE-BASED TERMINATION DURING TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF 85A O.S. § 7(E)	Employer terminated employee during temporary total disability period
2	RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 85A O.S. § 7(A)	Employer retaliated against employee for filing workers' compensation claim and retaining lawyer

Petition Text

1,180 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA RICHARD McCORMICK, Plaintiff, v. McALISTER OIL, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW, Plaintiff Richard McCormick ("McCormick"), for his causes of action against Defendant McAlister Oil, LLC ("McAlister Oil"), and alleges and states as follows: The Parties 1. McCormick is and at all relevant times herein was a citizen of the State of Oklahoma and a resident of LeFlore County, State of Oklahoma. 2. McAlister Oil, LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability Company organized under the laws of Delaware and authorized to do business in the State of Oklahoma. Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This Court has both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties to this lawsuit. The district courts of the State of Oklahoma have exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to 85A O.S. § 7. 4. Venue is proper in the District Court of Oklahoma County pursuant to Article IX, Section 43 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Factual Allegations 5. McAlister Oil hired McCormick as a Driver/Operator on or about December 22, 2021. 6. Throughout his employment, McCormick performed his job duties and responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. 7. In April 2022, McAlister Oil transferred McCormick to its operations in Heavener, Oklahoma. 8. In September 2022, McCormick suffered an on-the-job injury in which he tore his ACL. 9. After his injury, McCormick alerted McAlister Oil that he had suffered a work-related injury and initiated a workers’ compensation claim under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act, 85A O.S. § 1, et seq. (the “Act”). 10. At all times following his September 2022 injury and up through his termination, McCormick was in a period of temporary total disability within the meaning of 85A O.S. § 45 and was receiving temporary total disability benefits. 11. After his injury, McCormick kept McAlister Oil apprised of his status. 12. In January 2023, while communicating with McAlister Oil’s human resources department about his status, McCormick was told not to worry about his job because it would—not—be there for him when he was able to resume his duties. 13. In or around March 2023, McCormick retained legal counsel to represent him in connection with his workers’ compensation claim under the Act. 14. In May 2023, McCormick received a medical release to return to work with permanent restrictions that would have allowed him to perform his job duties and responsibilities. McCormick contacted McAlister Oil’s human resources department to inform the company of his release to return to work. 15. Upon contacting McAlister Oil’s human resources department regarding his release to return to work, McCormick was told that because he had retained legal counsel, he should not directly contact the company again. 16. In or around November 2023, McAlister Oil stopped paying McCormick his temporary total disability benefits and indicated that he could not return to work. 17. In December 2023, because McAlister Oil had stopped paying his workers’ compensation benefits and had indicated that he could not return to work, McCormick filed for unemployment benefits. 18. As part of the unemployment process, McAlister Oil reported to the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (“OESC”) that McCormick had been released from employment on February 28, 2023. McAlister Oil reported to OESC that McCormick “had been on leave since 9/26/2022 and his position could no longer be held with no return to work date known.” 19. As of the date of his termination by McAlister Oil, McCormick was in a period of temporary total disability under the Act and was receiving temporary total disability benefits. A period of temporary total disability under the Act may last up to 156 weeks, and McCormick had been absent from work for only approximately 22 weeks at the time of his termination. 20. McAlister Oil terminated McCormick solely because of his absence from work during his period of temporary total disability, and/or to avoid its obligations under the Act, in violation of 85A O.S. § 7(E). 21. McAlister Oil also retaliated against McCormick because he had filed a workers’ compensation claim under the Act and because he had retained legal counsel in connection with that claim, in violation of 85A O.S. § 7(A). 22. As a result of McAlister Oil’s violations of the Act, McCormick has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including lost wages and benefits, in an amount in excess of $75,000.00. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: ABSENCE-BASED TERMINATION DURING TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF 85A O.S. § 7(E) 23. McCormick incorporates and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 24. Section 7(E) of the Act provides that no employer may discharge an employee during a period of temporary total disability for the sole reason of being absent from work or for the purpose of avoiding payment of temporary total disability benefits to the injured employee. 25. At the time of his termination, McCormick was in a period of temporary total disability and was receiving temporary total disability benefits under the Act. 26. McAlister Oil discharged McCormick during his period of temporary total disability solely because his position “could no longer be held with no return to work date known”—that is, solely because of his absence from work attributable to his compensated temporary total disability—and/or for the purpose of avoiding its obligation to pay temporary total disability benefits to McCormick. 27. McAlister Oil’s termination of McCormick was in direct violation of 85A O.S. § 7(E). 28. As a direct and proximate result of McAlister Oil’s violation of 85A O.S. § 7(E), McCormick has suffered damages, including: (1) For actual and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $75,000.00; (2) For interest thereon as provided by law, prejudgment and postjudgment; (3) For costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 85A O.S. § 7(D); and (4) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and proper. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 85A O.S. § 7(A) 29. McCormick incorporates and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 30. Section 7(A) of the Act prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has in good faith filed a claim under the Act or retained a lawyer for representation regarding a claim under the Act. 31. McCormick filed a workers’ compensation claim under the Act following his September 2022 injury, and in or around March 2023 retained legal counsel to represent him in connection with that claim. 32. McAlister Oil retaliated against McCormick because he filed a workers’ compensation claim and retained legal counsel, including by failing to hold his position, refusing to allow him to return to work upon his release, instructing him not to contact the company directly because he had retained counsel, and terminating his employment. 33. McAlister Oil’s conduct constitutes unlawful retaliation in violation of 85A O.S. § 7(A). 34. As a direct and proximate result of McAlister Oil’s violation of 85A O.S. § 7(A), McCormick has suffered damages, including: (1) For actual and punitive damages in a sum in excess of $75,000.00; (2) For interest thereon as provided by law, prejudgment and postjudgment; (3) For costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 85A O.S. § 7(D); and (4) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and proper. Respectfully submitted, GLASS & TABOR, LLP ______________________________ Jonathan M. Irwin, OBA #32636 1601 36th Avenue, N.W. Norman, Oklahoma 73072 (405) 360-9700 / (405) 360-7902 fax ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF