Summary: Rouse was employed by the Grand River Dam Authority, an Oklahoma state agency, at its coal-fired plant. After several years of poor performance reviews for specific issues which remained uncorrected and three specific events resulting in workplace issues, Rouse was terminated. Upon Rouse's request, the termination was suspended and he was allowed to retire. Thereafter, Rouse sued for wrongful termination. The matter was heard by the Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission ("OMPC") which is a state agency in charge of the state's employment dispute regulation system for state employees. The OMPC held a two-day hearing and concluded that Rouse's termination was justified. Rouse appealed to the district court, which upheld the OMPC ruling. Rouse then appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts in this opinion.
Legal Issues: When reviewing the decisions of an administrative agency, the Oklahoma Supreme Court will affirm decisions that are supported by substantial evidence and which are not arbitrary and capricious.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court consolidated Rouse's numerous complained issues into four main issues: 1) the interpretation of 74 O.S. §840-6.5; 2) determining whether the reasons for termination were not pretextual or post hoc rationalizations; 3) determining that the employee was estopped from challenging the level of discipline imposed (termination); and, 4) the evidence introduced before and considered by OMPC.
Interpretation of 74 O.S. §840-6.5: Rouse argued that under this statute in order to be terminated there must be proof of an element of willfulness or culpable negligence and that because no specific evidence was admitted on either point that the termination must be reversed. The Court cited the pertinent language of the statute as follows:
Any employee in the classified service may be discharged . . . for misconduct, insubordination, inefficiency, habitual drunkenness, inability to perform the duties of the position in which employed, willful violation of the Oklahoma Personnel Act, the Merit Rules for Employment or of the rules prescribed by the Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission, conduct unbecoming a public employee, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or any other just cause.
The Court ruled that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, and that termination is possible for any of a litany of grounds. Nothing in the terms of the statute or other applicable law requires that an employee terminated for "just cause" must be proved to have acted with an element of willfulness or culpable negligence.
Whether the reasons stated were pretextual or post hoc rationalizations: An employee may allege they were terminated in retaliation for such things as filing a worker's compensation claim or whistleblowing and that the stated reasons for the termination are either not genuinely present (pretextual) or the stated reasons would not have otherwise resulted in termination but were used as grounds for termination in this instance (post hoc rationalization). If such allegations are made, the employer can rebut these allegations by showing that the termination was legitimate for non-retaliatory reasons. The Court cited numerous pieces of evidence in the record including poor performance reports from the years 2006 through 2011 with the specific complaints including the taking of excessively long smoking breaks, being inefficient, reading fictional books while on duty, and misconduct. Rouse was suspended without pay for seven days in 2010. Additionally, Rouse admitted to an incomplete work task assignment in August, 2011, incompetence in handling an alarm event on December 13, 2011, and inattentiveness to a costly tube leak/overflow event on December 14, 2011. Based on the available evidence, the Court ruled that the allegations of pretext and/or post hoc rationalizations had been rebutted.
Estoppel of the employee to challenge the level of discipline: Estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents one party from taking a position that is inconsistent with an earlier action and that places the other party at a disadvantage. In this case, Rouse bargained for a change of his status from termination to retirement, then sued for wrongful termination. The administrative decision indicated that Rouse should be estopped from challenging the level of discipline because Rouse had, in essence, agreed to the termination in bargaining to obtain his full retirement. The Court ruled that had there not been grounds for Rouse's termination that the estoppel argument might have been applied, but that in this instance where the record contained significant evidence of grounds for Rouse's termination, the argument was immaterial to the determination of the Court.
Admission of evidence of prior discipline: Rouse argued that he was denied due process because he was not provided with a specific written statement that his prior negative evaluations would be used against him as a reason for termination after the events of December, 2011. Rouse also argued that he should have been given some level of progressive discipline without termination. The Court noted that Rouse had received negative written evaluations in 2006 through 2009 with the cumulative effect that he was he was suspended without pay for seven days in 2010. After all of this Rouse was terminated after the events of December 2011. The Court ruled that the written evaluations and pre-termination letters issued to Rouse were sufficient notice. The Court noted that there had previously been a progression of discipline in this matter. Further, the Court ruled that progressive discipline is not mandated in all causes and that public employers are not required to prove some less severe disciplinary act would be ineffective before application of a more stringent penalty.
Discussion: Oklahoma is an "at will" employment state, meaning that as a general rule employment may be terminated by the employee or the employer for any or no reason. Nonetheless, certain types of termination can be reversed and lost wages awarded. These usually involve some claim of retaliation against the employee for filing a claim against the employer, whistleblowing, or other federally prohibited behaviors such as racial or age discrimination. The variables are many, and any questions in this regard should be submitted to a qualified attorney. When the state of Oklahoma is the employer, employment disputes are handled by the OMPC.
Policy debates rage regarding the ease or difficulty of termination for state employees. This opinion clarifies the current state of the law. If and when there should be changes to the law are up to the legislature and governor.
No comments:
Post a Comment