CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
OKLAHOMA COUNTY • CJ-2026-1988

Tekesha Scott v. BODY CONTOUR CENTERS, LLC d/b/a SONO BELLO

Filed: Mar 16, 2026
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: in 2026, a grown woman had to quit her job as a nurse because her employer allegedly disciplined her for sounding “harsh” and “defensive”—traits, mind you, that were apparently only problematic when exhibited by a Black woman, while her white coworkers got a free pass doing the exact same thing. Oh, and let’s not forget—the descriptors used to justify her punishment? Straight out of the racist stereotype playbook: the dreaded “Angry Black Woman” trope, the professional kryptonite that has derailed careers, silenced voices, and now, apparently, landed in a courtroom in Oklahoma County. Welcome to the workplace, where some people get empathy and others get write-ups for existing while Black.

Meet Tekesha Scott, a registered nurse who, from October 2024 to November 2025, worked for Body Contour Centers, LLC, better known to the public as Sono Bello—a national chain that promises people they can “sculpt their dream body” with minimally invasive procedures. (Because nothing says “self-care” like getting liposuction at a strip mall.) Tekesha wasn’t just any employee; she was the only Black nurse in her department. That detail might seem minor, but in cases like this, isolation is the first red flag. Being the “only” means every move is scrutinized, every tone parsed, every emotion potentially racialized. And according to her petition, that’s exactly what happened. Tekesha wasn’t just working a job—she was surviving a workplace culture where the rules seemed to change depending on the color of your skin.

The story unfolds like a slow-motion workplace horror film. Tekesha started at Sono Bello with the same training and responsibilities as her peers. But soon, the disparities began. When she expressed concern or used a firm tone—something nurses do regularly, because, you know, they’re responsible for people’s health—she was labeled “harsh,” “defensive,” and “dismissive.” Her white coworkers? They could bark orders, sound stern, or raise an eyebrow at a sloppy chart note and it was just “professional assertiveness.” But when Tekesha did it? Cue the disciplinary file. The petition even drops the bombshell that these characterizations were likely rooted in the “Angry Black Woman” stereotype—a tired, toxic myth that paints Black women as inherently aggressive, uncooperative, and emotionally volatile, regardless of their actual behavior. It’s not just offensive; it’s career sabotage disguised as performance feedback.

And the discrimination didn’t stop at tone policing. Oh no. The perks of the job? They were apparently for white employees only. Nurses at Sono Bello were allowed to schedule cosmetic procedures as an employee benefit—because nothing says “workplace morale” like free liposuction. But when Tekesha tried to use this benefit, she was told there were “strict time limitations” and concerns about recovery and coverage. Suspicious, right? Especially when a white coworker got the same procedure without any of those logistical hurdles. It’s like they suddenly discovered scheduling software existed the moment a white nurse wanted a tummy tuck.

Then there’s the schedule. White nurses could call in sick and go home. Tekesha? She was forced to finish her shift even when she wasn’t feeling well. Flexibility? That was apparently a white benefit. And when it came to cross-training or taking on additional duties—opportunities that lead to growth and promotions—Tekesha was shut out. Her skills were ignored. Her potential? Unseen. Meanwhile, her white peers were handed development opportunities on a silver platter. This wasn’t just unfair—it was a calculated pattern of professional stagnation based on race.

Tekesha wasn’t silent. She complained. Multiple times. To management. To human resources. She even sent a formal written complaint on October 27, 2025, laying out the racial disparities she was experiencing. And what happened? Radio silence. No investigation. No response. Just crickets. So, on November 7, she followed up with an email asking, “Hey, did anyone read my complaint?” And three days later? Boom. A disciplinary meeting. A formal write-up. The timing is so suspicious it might as well come with a drumroll. She reported racism, and instead of getting justice, she got punished. That, folks, is retaliation—textbook.

By this point, Tekesha was drowning. Her mental health was tanking. She started seeing an Employee Assistance Program counselor, who—after multiple sessions—told her, in no uncertain terms, “Do not go back to that workplace.” That’s not a suggestion. That’s a professional intervention. And so, on November 14, 2025, after nearly a year of enduring what she describes as a racially hostile work environment, Tekesha resigned. She didn’t get fired. She didn’t quit because she couldn’t handle the job. She quit because the job was making her sick—emotionally, mentally, professionally. And now, she’s suing for $75,000 in compensatory damages and another $75,000 in punitive damages—because apparently, Oklahoma law caps emotional distress and lost wages claims in state court at $75k unless you’re asking for more, which she is. Is $75,000 a lot? For a nurse who lost wages, opportunities, and peace of mind? For someone who had to walk away from her career because her employer refused to protect her from discrimination? It’s a drop in the bucket. But it’s a start.

So what’s she actually suing for? Two big things. First: race discrimination. She’s saying Sono Bello treated her worse than white nurses in every aspect of her job—from discipline to benefits to scheduling to career growth. Second: retaliation. She reported the discrimination, and instead of fixing it, they punished her for speaking up. Both are illegal under federal and Oklahoma law. And both are exactly the kind of thing that makes people lose faith in workplaces, in systems, in fairness itself.

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part of this case isn’t just that someone was allegedly judged by a racist stereotype in 2025. It’s that the stereotype worked. It was effective. It got her disciplined. It isolated her. It silenced her—until she couldn’t stay silent anymore. And the fact that a medical employer, of all places, failed to recognize that tone policing a Black nurse could literally endanger patients? That’s terrifying. Healthcare is supposed to be about objectivity, professionalism, and safety. But when bias creeps in, it doesn’t just hurt employees—it undermines the entire mission.

We’re rooting for Tekesha not because we know every detail will be proven in court—we don’t. We’re rooting for her because her story is too familiar. Because “harsh” and “defensive” are too often code words. Because a nurse who’s told to “smile more” while saving lives is being gaslit. And because no one should have to choose between their dignity and their paycheck. This isn’t just about $75,000. It’s about saying, out loud, that the “Angry Black Woman” stereotype has no place in the workplace—especially when that workplace is supposed to be about healing.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$75,000 Monetary
$75,000 Punitive
Plaintiffs
  • Tekesha Scott individual
    Rep: CHANDA GRAHAM, OBA # 17809, KENYATTA R. BETHEA, OBA #18650
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Discrimination on the Basis of Race in violation of Title VII, Section 1981 and Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act Plaintiff alleges disparate treatment due to her race, including inequitable application of discipline, benefits, work schedules, employee perks, and development and promotion opportunities.
2 Retaliation on the Basis of Race in violation of Title VII, Section 1981 and Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act Plaintiff alleges retaliation for reporting concerns of discrimination based on race, including consequences to her employment and lost wages.

Petition Text

1,151 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA TEKESHA SCOTT Plaintiff, v. BODY CONTOUR CENTERS, LLC d/b/a SONO BELLO, a foreign Limited Liability Company Defendant. FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA March 16, 2026 12:58 PM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-1988 Case No.: ________________ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION COMES NOW, Plaintiff herein, Tekesha Scott, hereafter Plaintiff, and for her cause of action against Body Contour Centers, LLC d/b/a Sono Bello, hereafter Defendant, alleges, and states as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Tekesha Scott is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant, Body Contour Centers, LLC d/b/a Sono Bello is a Washington for profit Limited Liability Company registered to do business in the State of Oklahoma with the Oklahoma Secretary of State. 3. The claims alleged herein occurred in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 4. As such, jurisdiction and venue are proper herein. On or about November 14, 2025, Plaintiff resigned her position with Defendant after months of disparate treatment due to her race that went unaddressed despite numerous complaints in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, ("Section 1981") and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, 25 O.S. § 1101, et seq. 5. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a Notice of Right to sue on or about December 16, 2025. This Petition is being filed within 90 days of Plaintiff's receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue. 6. From October 4, 2024, to November 14, 2025, Defendant Employed Tekesha Scott as a nurse. 7. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was the only Black Registered Nurse in her department and was consistently treated differently than her non-Black peers. 8. Concerns about Plaintiff's behavior or communication resulted in disciplinary action when non-Black co-workers faced no repercussions for the same behavior. 9. When disciplined for her behavior or communication, the language used in the write-ups to describe Plaintiff was "harsh", "defensive", "dismissive" despite using the same tone as her non-Black counterparts. Upon information and belief, these descriptors are based on the "Angry Black Woman" stereotype rather than Plaintiff's actual behavior. 10. Defendant administered benefits disparately, allowing non-Black nurses to go home when feeling unwell, while Defendant was forced to finish her shift despite being under the weather as well. White nurses were allowed schedule flexibility while Plaintiff was subjected to strict adherence. 11. Unlike her non-Black counterparts, Plaintiff was denied the ability to cross-train or perform other duties she was trained to fulfill, which limited her professional development as compared to her non-Black counterparts. 12. Plaintiff was frequently denied scheduled hours when her non-Black counterparts were not as the scheduling policy was not applied to her the same way it was to non-Black employees, resulting in loss of income to Plaintiff. 13. In another instance, Plaintiff was denied the ability to schedule a cosmetic procedure, which was a benefit of her employment with Defendant. She was told that there were strict time limitations that would apply for recovery time and scheduling coverage that prevented her from having the procedure. However, another non-Black employee had the same procedure without all the time considerations Plaintiff was subjected to. 14. Despite Plaintiff complaining about the disparate treatment to management and human resources on numerous occasions, no action was taken or investigations initiated. 15. October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a written complaint with human resources, via email. In it, she outlined the disparate treatment she was experiencing and expressed that she felt it was due to her race. 16. Having heard nothing back from her complaint, Plaintiff followed up with an email Friday, November 7, 2025, asking for an update on the status of her complaint. 17. Monday, November 10, 2025, she was called in for a disciplinary meeting about a formal write-up. 18. Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Plaintiff was advised by her Employee Assistance Program counselor to resign her position due to concerns about her well being. 19. She met with her counselor again on November 13 and 14, 2025. Each time, her counselor recommended that Plaintiff not return to the workplace. Plaintiff resigned November 14, 2025. COUNT I Discrimination on the Basis of Race in violation of Title VII, Section 1981 and Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Tekesha Scott, and for her First Cause of Action incorporates the allegations set forth above and further asserts: 20. Plaintiff, a black female, is a member of a protected class on the basis of race. 21. Plaintiff, in all respects was performing her job in a manner that was consistent with Defendant’s legitimate business expectations and training. 22. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff as described above, including but not limited to unfavorable disparate treatment with regard to the terms and conditions of her employment, including, but not limited to: inequitable application of discipline, the administration of benefits, work schedules, employee perks, and development and promotion opportunities. 23. Defendant also retaliated against Plaintiff when she complained about the actions described above. 24. As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful employment practices and in disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, other consequential damages, and lost wages. 25. Plaintiff 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 Retaliation on the Basis of Race in violation of Title VII, Section 1981 and Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act 26. Plaintiff reported her concerns relative to discrimination based on race to Defendant which is a protected activity. 27. Each time Plaintiff complained, she suffered consequences as to the terms and conditions of employment whether it be cutting her hours or denying her perks. 28. When she sent a follow up email November 7, 2025, asking about the status of the formal discrimination complaint she lodged October 27, 2025, she was immediately subjected to formal discipline November 10, 2025. 29. As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful employment practices and in disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, other consequential damages, and lost wages. 30. Plaintiff 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 prays for an award of special and general compensatory damages as well as punitive 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] /s/ Chanda R. Graham By: _______________________________ CHANDA GRAHAM, OBA # 17809 KENYATTA R. BETHEA, OBA #18650 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.