Case Title: Pearce v. Oklahoma

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88251

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Pearce v. Oklahoma  Pearce v. Oklahoma 1998 OK 106 970 P.2d 175 69 OBJ 3789 Case Number: 88251 Decided: 10/27/1998 Mandate Issued: 12/03/1998 Supreme Court of Oklahoma DANA BETH PEARCE, Appellee, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, and JAMES M. NICHOLSON, INDIVIDUALLY, [970 P.2d 176] CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIV. 4 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GARVIN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, HONORABLE ROBERT L. BAILEY, TRIAL JUDGE ¶0 Certiorari has been granted to answer the question whether the power of the director of the Department of Human Services to make appointments to the unclassified service has been removed through amendments to the Oklahoma Personnel Act. D.H.S. argues that as a constitutionally created agency their director's authority cannot be limited by the legislature and the director should be free to make appointments to unclassified service. Recent amendments to the personnel act allow the director some latitude in making non-merit system hiring decisions. The director's power to appoint to unclassified service is not removed by virtue of the amendments to CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED. JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. Mark Hammons Hammons & Associates Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Appellee, Charles L. Waters, General Counsel Richard A. Resetaritz, Asst.Gen.Counsel Department of Human Services Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Appellants. SIMMS, J: ¶1 The Department of Human Services (D.H.S.) presents one issue for certiorari review: whether the power of the director of the Department of Human Services to make appointments to the unclassified service has been removed through amendments to the Oklahoma Personnel Act, citing ¶2 Certiorari is granted. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. ¶3 Plaintiff below, Dana Beth Pearce, was employed with the Department of Human Services as assistant superintendent of the Southern Oklahoma Resource Center, which at the time of her employment served both mentally handicapped adults and children. Pearce worked for the center in January 1991, until her resignation in February 1993. When she was hired, the Department of Human Services considered her an unclassified employee, informed her of this status and the fact she would not be "classified" for purposes of the Oklahoma Personnel Act and the Merit System protections that act provides. ¶4 [970 P.2d 177] Pearce's resignation resulted from an inquiry regarding alleged misrepresentations she made about her qualifications when she first interviewed and was hired for the position. The center's director, James Nicholson, began proceedings to terminate Pearce, serving her with a "Notice of Proposed Termination." This notice informed Ms. Pearce of the nature of the allegations for termination and offered her an opportunity to respond to the allegations in writing. Pearce did respond, but Nicholson chose to proceed with the termination. It was then that Pearce tendered her resignation. ¶5 Thereafter, Pearce filed her Petition in the district court of Garvin County, alleging both a common law tort claim and a Section 42 U.S.C § 1983 claim. The trial court heard testimony and argument regarding the amount of back pay to award Pearce. Pearce prevailed and was awarded $61,690 for the income lost when she took a lesser paying job with Oklahoma City Public Schools, after resigning from D.H.S. based on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Prior to the trial, Pearce and D.H.S. agreed to Pearce's reinstatement in a comparable position for like pay, pursuant to an earlier order (February 28, 1996) and the corresponding Journal Entry of Partial Summary Judgment, which directed the reinstatement. The back pay issue was the only one pursued at the trial. ¶6 The termination process afforded Pearce was in keeping with that offered to those employees in unclassified employment. However, the procedure was not in keeping with that offered in the merit system process, which provided the opportunity to respond to allegations in person, not simply in writing, as well as other protections, such as an appeal to the Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission. II. ¶7 The only question before us on certiorari review is whether the Director of the department may appoint employees to the unclassified service and whether The Commission shall formulate the policies, and adopt rules and regulations for the effective administration of the duties of the Department. All executive and administrative duties and responsibilities of the Department shall be discharged by the Director, subject to the approval of the Commission. Subject to the control of the Commission, the Director shall have the power and it shall be his duty to employ personnel of the Department, prescribe minimum standards of qualifications for such personnel and conduct examinations before employment, formulate salary schedules for classified service based upon training, experience and general ability of persons selected for positions in the Department or any institution or activities under the supervision of the Department. Oklahoma Const. XXV, § 4 (emphasis added). ¶8 The Constitutional provision itself contemplates classified service for the employees of the Dept. of Public Welfare. Pearce's position was not one which was listed in the "unclassified catalog" at ¶9 The director's power to appoint to unclassified service is not removed by virtue of the amendments to ¶10 The trial court award in Plaintiff's favor is affirmed. KAUGER, C.J., HODGES, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, OPALA and WATT, JJ., CONCUR. SUMMERS, V.C.J., DISSENTS: Like Justice Lavender, I would dismiss this case as moot. LAVENDER, J. DISSENTS. WILSON, J., DISSENTS AND JOINS LAVENDER, J. FOOT