Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06178/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06178-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM A. PIPKIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

THE CITY OF MOORE, OKLAHOMA, 

a Municipal Corporation; MOORE 

PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY, a 

Public Trust; and ROBERT W. 

SWANAGON, individually and as 

City Manager of City of Moore, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

LOUIS KINDRICK and WILLIE EDWARDS, 

individually and as members of 

Moore City Council, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) (D.C. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SETH, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

FILED 

United StatR...: Cu• m o'i itppet:.ls 

Tenth circnit 

APR O 11991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6178 

No. CIV-89-1534-A) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6178 Document: 010110031702 Date Filed: 04/01/1991 Page: 1 
This appeal is from an order of the district court granting 

summary judgment in favor of defendants City of Moore, the Moore 

Public Works Authority (MPWA), two members of the Moore City 

Council, and the Moore City Manager. Plaintiff William Pipkin 

contends the district court erred in granting summary judgment 

because there are disputed material facts relating to his claims 

for wrongful termination, nonpayment for services, and unlawful 

conspiracy. We affirm. 

We review a district court's grant of a motion for summary 

judgment under the same standard applied by that court. Burnette 

Y.!.. Dow Chemical Co., 849 F.2d 1269, 1272 (10th Cir. 1988). We 

must determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. 

Id. In answering this question, we view all facts and inferences 

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. If we 

find there is no genuine issue of material fact, we affirm the 

district court unless it misapplied the law. Osgood Y.!.. State Farm 

Mut. Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988). Our review of 

legal questions is de novo. Carey Y.!.. United States Postal Serv., 

812 F.2d 621, 623 (10th Cir. 1987). 

This appeal arose out of plaintiff's termination as the parttime City Attorney and counsel for the Moore Public Works 

Authority. Plaintiff had been employed by the City for several 

years. On May 7, 1987, City Manager Robert Swanagon notified 

plaintiff that the Office of City Attorney was being changed to a 

full-time job and therefore his services would no longer be 

required. Although Swanagon invited plaintiff to apply for the 

new position, he declined to do so. Plaintiff was paid for all 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6178 Document: 010110031702 Date Filed: 04/01/1991 Page: 2 
legal services rendered to the City up until the date of 

termination. 

Plaintiff originally filed this suit seeking recovery 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations. He also 

alleged various state claims, including wrongful termination, 

nonpayment for services, and unlawful conspiracy. As a result of 

another determination in this court, plaintiff has now abandoned 

his section 1983 claims. 

Oklahoma recognizes the at-will employment doctrine. Unless 

the parties have agreed otherwise, an employer may terminate an 

employee at any time without cause. See Singh~ Cities Service 

Oil Co., 554 P.2d 1367, 1368-69 (Okla. 1976). Based on our review 

of the record, we conclude there is no material question of fact 

relating to whether plaintiff was an at-will employee. There was 

no written employment contract between plaintiff and the City. No 

implied contract right to job security can be inferred from the 

circumstances of plaintiff's employment. See Hinson~ Cameron, 

742 P.2d 549, 554-57 (Okla. 1987) (discussion of implied 

employment contracts). Plaintiff also cannot base his claim for 

wrongful termination on the public policy exception to the 

employment at-will doctrine, see id. at 552-53 (outlining 

parameters of this claim), or the implied covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing, see id. at 553-54 (refusing to recognize this 

claim). Because plaintiff was an at-will employee, he has no 

claim for wrongful termination. Plaintiff also failed to 

establish Swanagon did not have the authority to terminate him on 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6178 Document: 010110031702 Date Filed: 04/01/1991 Page: 3 
May 7, 1987. The district court properly entered summary judgment 

in favor of defendants on this claim. 

Further, plaintiff failed to present any evidence indicating 

there was a material issue of fact concerning whether plaintiff 

and the City entered into a valid contract regarding the payment 

of fees in relation to bond issues in June and November of 1985. 

We also conclude plaintiff's claim for payment of fees in relation 

to the sale of the Moore Municipal Hospital is barred by the 

statute of frauds, Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 136. Plaintiff provides 

two documents he contends satisfy the rquirements of the statute 

of frauds: MPWA's resolution employing Paul Johanning to assist in 

the preparation of documents associated with this sale and a 

closing order authorizing payment to Mr. Johanning. Although 

these documents mention the compensation to be paid to MPWA's 

General Counsel, they do not detail the essential elements of this 

alleged contract between plaintiff and MWPA. These writings 

therefore do not satisfy the statute of frauds. Joseph~ Seagram 

~ Sons, Inc. Y..!.. Shaffer, 310 F.2d 688, 674 (10th Cir. 1962) (The 

memoranda or writings must plainly set forth the parties to the 

contract, the subject matter thereof, the price or consideration, 

a description of the property, and all of the terms and conditions 

of the contract, and must leave nothing to rest in parol.), cert. 

denied, 373 U.S. 948 (1963). Summary judgment was properly 

entered on these pendant state claims. 

Finally, there is no evidence in the record to support a 

claim for unlawful conspiracy to terminate plaintiff among the 

individual defendants. Plaintiff's assertion that the individual 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6178 Document: 010110031702 Date Filed: 04/01/1991 Page: 4 
defendants violated the Open Meeting Law in replacing the City 

Manager does not establish these defendants conspired to achieve 

an unlawful termination of plaintiff or a lawful termination of 

plaintiff through unlawful means. See Dill Y..!.. Rader, 533 P.2d 

650, 652 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975). The order of the district court 

granting summary judgment to defendants is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6178 Document: 010110031702 Date Filed: 04/01/1991 Page: 5