K:\VALB\Clients A-M\15640 Dept. & Board\0003 Delong, Michael\Pleadings (USDC-WDOK 14-cv-1439)\DeLong - M2Dismiss FINAL.docx
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case No. 5:14-cv-01439-C (1) MICHAEL DELONG, Plaintiff, v. (1) STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES; (2) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES; (3) TERRY WHITE, individually and as the Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health And Substance Abuse Services; (4) DURAND CROSBY, individually and as the Chief Operating Officer of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health And Substance Abuse Services; (5) CRATUS DEWAYNE MOORE, individually and as the General Counsel of Oklahoma Department of Mental Health And Substance Abuse Services; and (6) ELLEN BUETTNER, individually and as the Director, Human Resources Management, Human Resources Development for the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health And Substance Abuse Services, Defendants.
MOTION TO DISMISS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT BY DEFENDANTS STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES
VICTOR F. ALBERT, OBA #12069 CRYSTAL A. JOHNSON, OBA #21715 CONNER & WINTERS, LLP 1700 One Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 272-5711 Facsimile: (405) 232-2695 Email: valbert@cwlaw.com Email: cjohnson@cwlaw.com
Attorney for Defendants, State of Oklahoma ex rel The Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services and The Board of Directors for The Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
January 20, 2015
Case 5:14-cv-01439-C Document 15 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 30
i
K:\VALB\Clients A-M\15640 Dept. & Board\0003 Delong, Michael\Pleadings (USDC-WDOK 14-cv-1439)\DeLong - M2Dismiss FINAL.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BRIEF IN SUPPORT .......................................................................................................... 4
STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................................. 4
PROPOSITION I The Court should dismiss DeLong’s “Unlawful and Wrongful Termination” claim .............................................................................................................. 5
PROPOSITION II The Court should dismiss DeLong’s “retaliation” claim ..................... 7
A.
There is No Legal Basis for DeLong’s Generic Retaliation Claim .............. 7
B.
DeLong Does not Have a Colorable Retaliation Claim under Title VII ................................................................................................................. 9
PROPOSITION III The Court should dismiss DeLong’s Section 1983 claims (due process, free speech and free assembly) ............................................................................ 12
A.
The Department and The Board Are Not Liable Under Section 1983. ....... 12
B.
The Due Process Claim Fails as a Matter of Law. ...................................... 12
C.
The First Amendment Claims Fail as a Matter of Law. .............................. 13
D.
The Free Speech Claim Fails as a Matter of Law. ...................................... 15
PROPOSITION IV The Court should dismiss DeLong’s negligent training/supervision claim ................................................................................................. 19
A.
DeLong Likely Does not Have a Cognizable Claim Under Oklahoma Law .............................................................................................................. 19
B.
The Department and The Board Are Immune under the Tort Claims Act. .............................................................................................................. 20
C.
DeLong’s Conclusory Allegations Fail to State a Claim for Negligence ................................................................................................... 20
PROPOSITION V The Court should dismiss DeLong’s “Violation of Public Policy” claim ..................................................................................................................... 23
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
Case 5:14-cv-01439-C Document 15 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 30
i
K:\VALB\Clients A-M\15640 Dept. & Board\0003 Delong, Michael\Pleadings (USDC-WDOK 14-cv-1439)\DeLong - M2Dismiss FINAL.docx
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases
Adams v. Neubauer
,
195 F. App’x 711 (10
th
Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 12
Allen v. Justice Alma Wilson Seeworth Acad., Inc.
, 2012 WL 1298588, at *2 (W.D. Okla. 2012) ......................................................... 20
Asojo v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma
, 2012 WL 3679539 (W.D. Okla. 2012) ............................................................. 20, 22
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, (2007) .......................................................................................... 4, 19
Benedix v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-007 of Oklahoma Cnty., Okla.
, 2009 WL 975145, at *2 (W.D. Okla. 2009) ..................................................... 19, 20
Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Acad.
, 492 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 16
Cobb v. Pozzi
,
363 F.3d 89 (2
nd
Cir. 2004) .................................................................................... 18
Davis v. Unified Sch. Dist. 500,
750 F.3d 1168 (10
th
Cir. 2014) ................................................................................. 9
Garcetti v. Ceballos
, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) ......................................................................................... 15, 16
Khalik v. United Air Lines,
671 F.3d 1188 (10
th
Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 4
Merrifield v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Cnty. of Santa Fe
, 654 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 17
Murphy v. Spring
, 2013 WL 5172951, at *9 (N.D. Okla. 2013) .......................................................... 13
Myles v. Richmond Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
, 267 F. App’x 898 (11th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 18
N.H. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
, 998 P.2d 592 (Okla. 1999) ..................................................................................... 19
Parker v. Salazar
, 431 F. App’x 697 (10
th
Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 11
Polson v. Davis,
895 F.2d 705 (10th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................ 20
Robbins v. Oklahoma,
519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 4
Case 5:14-cv-01439-C Document 15 Filed 01/20/15 Page 3 of 30
