Trant v. Oklahoma
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36628
W.D. Okla.2012Background
- Plaintiff Collie M. Trant sues fourteen Defendants, including the State of Oklahoma and Board members, for declaratory and monetary relief across nineteen causes of action.
- The case was removed to federal court after originally being filed in state court; the court partially dismissed and remanded state-law actions.
- Plaintiff concedes certain causes of action are foreclosed by the Tenth Circuit’s ruling and those claims are dismissed.
- The court addresses standing, capacity, implied contract, GTCA claims, and exhaustion issues in light of prior rulings.
- The court sua sponte discusses declaratory relief under federal law and related procedural posture for the remaining claims.
- The Court’s final disposition leaves some two dozen claims, with several dismissed and a subset surviving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek declaratory relief on CME authority | Trant asserts a live controversy about CME authority. | Standing requires a concrete injury and redressable relief; uncertainty about future reinstatement is insufficient. | First claim dismissed for lack of Article III standing. |
| Official-capacity claims vs. Board members | Some claims seek reinstatement; Board members should be liable in official capacity. | Only Board members can reinstate CME; some defendants not Board members cannot be sued in official capacity for those claims. | Claims against non-Board members in official capacity related to reinstatement were dismissed; others survive as to eligible defendants. |
| Implied contract via OMA | OMA procedures create an implied contract to follow open meetings procedures. | OMA is procedural, not an employer-side contract; no binding implied contract arises. | Implied contract claim dismissed. |
| Burk tort vs. Whistleblower Act | Art. II, § 22 public policy supports Burk claim for wrongful discharge. | Whistleblower Act precludes Burk claim where applicable; public policy via Whistleblower Act suffices. | Burk claim survives because Art. II, § 22 basis differs from Whistleblower Act relief; not foreclosed. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Exhaustion not required for constitutional and tort claims seeking money relief. | Exhaustion required for reinstatement claim; MPC lacks power to award monetary damages. | Exhaustion not required for remaining constitutional/tort claims; only reinstatement claim may be foreclosed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (U.S. 1984) (standing requirement and injury-in-fact prerequisites)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standards; need grounds of entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (twombly-iqbal standard; threadbare allegations not enough)
- Shephard v. CompSource Okla., 209 P.3d 288 (Okla. 2009) (Whistleblower Act precludes Burk claim; statutory remedies adequate)
- Hinson v. Cameron, 742 P.2d 549 (Okla. 1987) (factors for implied contract; at-will considerations)
- Russell v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, Carter Cnty., 952 P.2d 492 (Okla. 1997) (employee handbook may form basis of implied contract with four elements)
- Waste Connections, Inc. v. Okla. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 61 P.3d 219 (Okla. 2002) (exhaustion where agency cannot provide adequate relief)