Thompson v. STATE EX REL. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF OKL. PUB. EMP. RETIR. SYS.
2011 OK 89
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Thompson submitted a Declaration of Intent to Retire on August 18, 2004; retirement benefits began August 31, 2004.
- In 2005–2006 Thompson was convicted by a jury of indecent exposure while presiding over trials, with four counts under indictment.
- OPERS received notice of the felonies and notified Thompson on September 12, 2006 that his judicial retirement benefits must be forfeited.
- Thompson requested an administrative hearing; the OPERS Board then sustained forfeiture in a February 19, 2009 final agency order.
- Thompson challenged procedural aspects (APA notice, hearing rights) and argued the wife, Paula Thompson, had procedural due process interests; the court retained review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of forfeiture statute | Thompson argues § 24.1 applies only to last oath term. | OPERS contends statute covers any oath of office misconduct resulting in forfeiture. | Statute applies broadly; forfeiture may extend beyond last term. |
| Procedural due process in forfeiture | Thompson claims APA notice and an individual hearing were required and inadequately provided. | OPERS asserts proper process occurred, including notice and an evidentiary hearing with burden shifting as appropriate. | Due process satisfied; prima facie evidence established; Thompson bore burden to proceed with evidence. |
| Burden of proof in hearing | Thompson claims burden improperly shifted and timing of evidence was defective. | OPERS bears initial burden to show oath violation, then Thompson must proceed with defense. | OPERS bore initial burden; Thompson had opportunity to present evidence, but his defense did not rebut the prima facie case. |
| Rights of the spouse beneficiary | Paula Thompson claims due process rights and a vested spousal interest in forfeited benefits. | No protected spousal interest exists if benefits are forfeited by operation of law. | Paula Thompson has no protected interest; due process does not attach to participation in the forfeiture proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. City of Lawton, 845 P.2d 880 (Okla. 1992) (pension vesting is subject to statutory contingencies and forfeiture for oath violations)
- Stipe v. State ex rel. Bd. of Trustees of OPERS, 188 P.3d 120 (Okla. 2008) (burden shifting and evidentiary standards in OFP procedures)
- Nida v. OPERS Bd. Of Trustees, 99 P.3d 1224 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004) (forfeiture of retirement benefits tied to oath violation and statute)
- Sides v. John Cordes, Inc., 981 P.2d 301 (Okla. 1999) (prima facie evidence sufficiency and burden concepts)
- Glenn Smith Oil v. Sheets, 704 P.2d 474 (Okla. 1985) (interpretation of burdens and evidentiary standards in administrative matters)