City of Owasso v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 149
2014 OK CIV APP 75
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2014Background
- Mike Denton, a 17-year Owasso police officer and FOP member, was terminated for using force on an arrestee (video showed stepping on the arrestee's head and multiple blows to the face).
- The City discharged Denton for alleged unreasonable/excessive force; the union grieved under a CBA that provides final and binding arbitration and waives judicial review of the grievance "last answer."
- An arbitrator found Denton used "unreasonable and unnecessary" force but concluded there was no proof of injury and that termination was excessive discipline; he ordered reinstatement with a written reprimand.
- The City petitioned the trial court to vacate the award, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his authority and the award violated Oklahoma public policy (criminal statutes prohibiting assault and excessive use of force by officers).
- The trial court vacated the award as contrary to public policy; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding the arbitrator’s decision drew its essence from the CBA and the cited statutes did not bar reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the CBA preclude any judicial review of the arbitrator? | CBA waiver forecloses court review of the arbitrator's decision. | CBA bars only merits review; not review for excess of authority or public-policy violations. | CBA does not bar judicial review of whether arbitrator exceeded authority or violated public policy. |
| Did the arbitrator exceed his authority under the CBA by reinstating Denton? | Arbitrator misapplied policies and wrongly reduced termination to a reprimand. | Arbitrator’s remedy falls within discretion under "just cause" and the parties’ bargain. | Arbitrator did not exceed his authority; courts must defer if award "draws its essence" from the CBA. |
| Can a court vacate an arbitration award as contrary to public policy? | Yes — reinstatement of an officer who used unlawful/excessive force conflicts with statutes and public safety. | No — public-policy exception requires an explicit, well-defined, dominant policy rooted in positive law; statutes do not mandate automatic termination or bar reinstatement. | Vacatur is permissible only for a clearly defined public policy; statutory criminalization alone did not clearly bar enforcement of this award. |
| Do 21 O.S. § 641 and 22 O.S. § 34.1 create a public-policy bar to reinstatement? | These statutes criminalize assault/excessive force and thus prohibit retaining officers found to have used such force. | Statutes criminalize conduct and require force policies but do not preclude employment or arbitral remedies; accusation or administrative finding is not a criminal conviction. | The statutes express public policy against assault/excessive force but do not establish a dominant rule forbidding reinstatement; vacatur on that ground was erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Voss v. City of Oklahoma City, 618 P.2d 925 (Okla. 1980) (adopts Steelworkers standard; limits judicial review of arbitration awards)
- United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1960) (arbitrator’s award will be enforced if it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement)
- W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1983) (arbitration award may be refused enforcement if it requires violation of an explicit public policy)
- United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1987) (public-policy exception must be grounded in well-defined law, not general interests)
- Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (reinstitution in safety-sensitive jobs not per se forbidden by statute; narrow view of public-policy vacatur)
- City of Yukon v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 2055, 792 P.2d 1176 (Okla. 1990) (Oklahoma precedent emphasizing deference to arbitrators unless they exceed authority)