Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06358/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06358-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RODNEY ROY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LLD APPEALS 'F l 'n-• ...t of APvea" 

_u....\ ~ \JW&~~t U111- Tenth C\tcua 

M~'< 10 ,993 

ERTL. ROECKER 

ROB Clerk 

No. 92-6358 

CENTRAL STATE UNIVERSITY, 

State of Oklahoma, ex rel. 

Central State University, 

now University of Central 

Oklahoma, JOYCE MOUNCE, 

individually and as Vice 

President of Administration 

of Central State University, 

and BLANCHE WASHINGTON, 

individually and as Director 

of Personnel of Central 

State University, 

(D.C. No. CIV-92-124-C) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-6358 Document: 010110110119 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 1 
Appellant Rodney Roy was terminated from his employment as 

supervisor of the plumbing shop at the University of Central 

Oklahoma (previously called Central State University). He brought 

an action against the State of Oklahoma and University of Central 

Oklahoma alleging (1) violation of his civil rights under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, (2) conspiracy to violate his civil rights, and 

(3) breach of contract. Appellees removed the case to the 

United States District Court for the District of Oklahoma, and the 

court subsequently granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment. 

The issue raised on appeal is whether the district court erred in 

granting Appellees' motion for summary judgment on Appellant's 

breach of contract claim. 

Appellant argues that he was terminated without just cause in 

violation of the terms of his employment contract. Appellees 

argue that he was employed at will. Although we note that whether 

or not Appellant was employed pursuant to an employment agreement 

is a genuine issue of material fact that would ordinarily make 

summary judgment inappropriate, the district court noted that even 

assuming Appellant's contention that he had a written employment 

contract, Appellant was properly terminated for cause pursuant to 

an established employment policy that permitted termination for 

fighting at work. 

Appellant has not presented any material facts to dispute 

Appellees' contention that he was indeed fighting at work. Absent 

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, 

the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. See 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6358 Document: 010110110119 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 2 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Bacchus Industries, Inc. v. Arvin 

Industries, Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir.). 

Accordingly, the order of the District Court for the District 

of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6358 Document: 010110110119 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 3