City of Coweta v. Doughten
2011 OK CIV APP 113
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2011Background
- City hired Doughten February 2009 on probation; he was terminated May 2010 while on probation.
- City claimed multiple disciplinary failures (reports, directives, sleeping on the job) justified termination without a hearing.
- Doughten sought relief and asked FOP to file a grievance on due-process grounds and CBA limits on discharge.
- FOP initially pursued a grievance arguing due process and “for just cause” discharge; CBA excluded probationary officers and later withdrew the grievance.
- Doughten claimed he was entitled to a hearing under 11 O.S.2001 § 50-123 as a pension system member despite probationary status; City argued §50-123’s exception applies due to the CBA covering discharge.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for City, concluding Doughten not protected by §50-123; both sides appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doughten is entitled to a board of review hearing under §50-123. | Doughten is a pension member and thus may appeal discharge. | CBA covers discharge for bargaining unit members; probationary status excludes hearing. | Doughten not entitled to §50-123 hearing; probationary status and CBA bar apply. |
| Whether the CBA’s coverage of discharge triggers the §50-123 exception. | CBA covers discharge, so §50-123 applies. | CBA does not provide for board of review and excludes probationary officers; thus no §50-123 protection. | CBA covers discharge; §50-123 exception applies, no board of review required. |
| Whether due process or FPAA rights permit a hearing for probationary officers. | Probationary officer is a pension member and deserves hearing rights. | Probationary status means no permanent rights; due process and FPAA do not grant a hearing for probationaries. | Probationary officers lack permanent status; no right to a hearing under FPAA or due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 108 v. City of Ardmore, 44 P.3d 569 (Okla. 2002) (probationary officers not permanent members for FPAA rights)
- City of Durant v. Cicio, 50 P.3d 218 (Okla. 2002) (statute protects pension members from arbitrary discharge; distinction probationary vs permanent)
- Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 108 v. City of Ardmore, 44 P.3d 569 (Okla. 2002) (reiterated FPAA rights depend on permanent status)