MITCHELL v. CITY OF OKMULGEE
2021 OK CIV APP 22
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2020Background
- Richard J. Mitchell (Fire Chief) injured his back at work in Oct. 2013, filed a workers' compensation claim, and began receiving temporary total disability (TTD) benefits.
- Under 11 O.S. §49-111, the City paid Mitchell his full salary while he assigned his TTD payments to the City; §49-111 authorizes continued salary for up to 12 months, after which OFPRS disability provisions apply.
- On April 27, 2015 the City notified Mitchell his 12 months of paid injury leave would expire May 16, 2015, and that it would separate him if he remained unable to return; the letter invited him to respond.
- Mitchell sued, asserting (1) retaliatory discharge in violation of the workers' compensation retaliatory-discharge statute (85 O.S. §341) and (2) deprivation of property without due process under 11 O.S. §29-104 (termination without "good and sufficient cause" or a hearing).
- The trial court granted Mitchell summary judgment and later awarded $120,000 in damages. The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed de novo and reversed, concluding summary judgment for Mitchell was inappropriate and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the workers' compensation retaliatory-discharge statute (§341) barred Mitchell's termination during TTD | Mitchell: §341(B) prohibits discharge during TTD and thus City violated the statute | City: §49-111 (firefighters' special scheme) explicitly governs and displaces §341(B) | Held: §49-111 is the specific statute governing injured firefighters and renders §341(B) inapplicable; Mitchell cannot recover under §341(B) as a matter of law |
| Whether termination violated due process by depriving Mitchell of a property interest under §29-104 without "good and sufficient cause" | Mitchell: §29-104 makes him a merit employee entitled to protection; termination lacked cause | City: §49-111 provided statutory "good and sufficient cause" to end salary after 12 months due to disability | Held: §49-111 constituted "good and sufficient cause" under §29-104; Mitchell did not show a legitimate expectation of continued employment |
| Whether City failed to provide required pretermination process/a hearing | Mitchell: termination without a hearing violated Loudermill-level due process | City: the April 27 letter explained the reason, cited applicable law, and invited response—sufficient pretermination process | Held: Notice and opportunity to respond in the letter satisfied the minimal pretermination process; a formal hearing was not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowery v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 160 P.3d 959 (2007 OK 38) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Hall v. Globe Life & Acc. Ins. Co. of Okla., 998 P.2d 603 (1999 OK 89) (specific statutory scheme controls over a conflicting general statute)
- Barnthouse v. City of Edmond, 73 P.3d 840 (2003 OK 42) (legitimate expectation required for property-interest due process)
- Hoerman v. W. Heights Bd. of Educ., 913 P.2d 684 (1995 OK CIV APP 130) (citing Loudermill for minimum pretermination process)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (public employees entitled to notice, explanation of evidence, and opportunity to respond)
- Evers v. FSF Overlake Assocs., 77 P.3d 581 (2003 OK 53) (movant's burden to show undisputed facts entitle to judgment as a matter of law)