BREWER v. CITY OF SEMINOLE
2014 OK 41
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Renee Brewer was a probationary police trainee for the City of Seminole from July 9, 2011 to January 4, 2012 and was involuntarily terminated.
- At termination she was a member of the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System (OPPRS) and classified as a probationary trainee under 11 O.S. §50-101(6).
- Brewer was not covered by (or was excluded from grievance/arbitration under) the municipality’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Fraternal Order of Police.
- Brewer sued in federal court asserting she had a property interest in continued employment because 11 O.S. §50-123(B) provides that "no member may be discharged except for cause," and sought a post-termination hearing before a police pension review board.
- The U.S. District Court certified three questions of Oklahoma law to the Oklahoma Supreme Court under the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reformulated question one (to avoid applying federal law), answered questions one and two in the negative, and declined to answer question three as it depended on an affirmative answer to question two.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 11 O.S. §50-123(B) gives a probationary police trainee who is an OPPRS member a statutory right to be terminated only for cause | Brewer: as an OPPRS member (definition includes trainees), §50-123(B) bars discharge except for cause | Seminole: legislature did not intend probationary trainees to have permanent-employee protections; applying §50-123(B) to trainees conflicts with CBA scheme and purpose of probation | No — §50-123(B) does not provide probationary trainees a right to be discharged only for cause |
| Whether §50-123(B) entitles a probationary trainee to a post-termination hearing before a Police Pension Review Board | Brewer: membership in OPPRS triggers the board/hearing protections of §50-123(A)/(B) | Seminole: probationary status and CBA context preclude such board review; statute not meant to grant that process to trainees | No — §50-123(B) does not afford probationary trainees a post-termination hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Jenks v. Stone, 321 P.3d 179 (Okla. 2014) (held §50-123(B) does not grant probationary trainees the right to be discharged only for cause or to a post-termination board hearing)
- City of Coweta v. Doughten, 264 P.3d 135 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (discussed; related CBA/termination issues)
- White v. City of Del City, 270 P.3d 205 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012) (discussed; related CBA/termination issues)