White v. City of Del City
2012 OK CIV APP 5
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2011Background
- White, a Del City police officer, was terminated on August 30, 2006 while probationary and a member of the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System.
- Board of Review hearings on White's termination occurred Dec 2006–Nov 27, 2007, and the Board denied his de novo appeal.
- White filed a December 27, 2007 petition asserting claims including a statutory appeal under 50-123/50-128, due process, interference with earning a living, retaliatory termination, public policy wrongful discharge, and defamation.
- City moved to dismiss certain claims under 12 O.S. Supp.2010 § 2012(b)(1) and (6); the district court granted partial dismissal and certified the rulings for interlocutory appeal.
- This appeal centers on statutory entitlement to review (50-123/50-128) and the scope of process due, with defamation alleged under the GTCA.
- The court ultimately held probationary officers are within the statutory protections, reversing the dismissal of the 50-123 appeal, remanding for due process consideration, and affirming dismissal of defamation under the GTCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White is entitled to appeal the Board's decision under §50-123 | White (as a probationary member) is protected by §50-123 | City argues probationary status falls outside §50-123 protections | Yes; probationary members are protected and may appeal under §50-123 |
| Whether the district court could review the Board's decision under APA standards | District court should apply APA review for §50-123 appeals | City contends statutory APA-like review does not apply if §50-123 is not triggered | Remand to allow APA-based review if White is entitled to §50-123 protections |
| Whether White's due process claims survive given Board review process | Termination without ‘for cause’ and Board review violate due process for probationary members | City argues due process not violated absent a right to continued employment | Due process issue preserved for district court on remand; not finally resolved here |
| Whether City can be liable for defamation under GTCA | City defamed White by publishing reasons for termination | GTCA immunity bars negligent or intentional misrepresentation and scope-of-employment limits claims | GTCA immunizes City from defamation claim here; defamation claim affirmed as dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Durant v. Cicio, 50 P.3d 218 (Okla. 2002) (statewide protection for police rulers; board review authority vested in state system)
- Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 108 v. City of Ardmore, 44 P.3d 569 (Okla. 2002) (distinguishes permanent vs. probationary members under FPAA; statutory 'member' scope differs)
- Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 33 P.3d 302 (Okla. 2001) (statutory interpretation - legislative intent; whole act approach)
- City of Durant v. Cicio, 50 P.3d 221-223 (Okla. 2002) (section 50-123 protects members from arbitrary discharge; board review if no local process)
- Head v. McCracken, 102 P.3d 670 (Okla. 2004) (de novo review standard for summary judgments in statutory interpretation)