BRISCO v. STATE ex rel. BD. OF REGENTS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGES, 2017 OK 35

Brisco was hired by Oklahoma State University as an assistant professor with a reappointment condition: satisfactory performance for three years would lead to a four-year reappointment.
OSU did not reappoint Brisco at the end of the term; Brisco sued for breach of contract and for intentional interference with contractual relations against individual employees.
Jury/trial result: Brisco prevailed on breach of contract, lost the tort claim, and was awarded $50,000 in damages.
After trial Brisco sought attorney fees under 12 O.S. § 936; the district court awarded $49,065; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that award.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether § 936 authorizes attorney fees for Brisco’s claim and reversed, holding § 936 did not authorize fees under these facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 12 O.S. § 936 authorizes attorney fees for this suit	Brisco: statute applies because the contract concerned her job performance and thus the suit is "to recover for labor or services rendered."	State/Board: § 936 applies only to recoveries for labor or services already performed (i.e., past services unpaid), not for prospective lost wages.	Held: § 936 is limited to labor or services "rendered" (past/performed). Fees not authorized for future/anticipated services.

Russell v. Flanagan, 544 P.2d 510 (Okla. 1975) (interpreting §936 to apply to labor or services "rendered")
Ferrell Const. Co., Inc. v. Russell Creek Coal Co., 645 P.2d 1005 (Okla. 1982) (§936 does not authorize fees when suit seeks anticipated profits from future performance)
Holbert v. Echeverria, 744 P.2d 960 (Okla. 1987) (distinguishing suits to recover unpaid labor/services from damages arising from breach of agreements related to labor/services)
Cook v. Oklahoma Bd. of Pub. Affairs, 736 P.2d 140 (Okla. 1987) (statutes authorizing attorney fees must be strictly construed)