Opinion ID: 2600613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the factual dispute

Text: ¶ 29 A party may move for either summary judgment or summary disposition of any issue on the merits on the ground that the evidentiary material filed with the motion or subsequently filed with leave of court show that there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact. Rules for the District Courts, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, ch. 2, app., Rule 13a (Supp.2007). If it appears to the court that there is no substantial controversy as to the material facts and that one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the court shall render judgment for said party. Id. at Rule 13e. All inferences in the evidence must be taken in favor of the party opposing the motion [and][s]ummary judgment is improper if under the evidence, reasonable [minds] could reach different conclusions from the facts. Indiana Nat'l Bank v. State Dept. of Human Servs., 1993 OK 101, ¶ 10, 857 P.2d 53, 60 (citations omitted). Thus, where reasonable minds could reach different conclusions from undisputed facts, the factual issue is a jury question. ¶ 30 The issue of Employer's intent in discharging Plaintiff presents the central and dispositive issue of fact in this controversy. If, from the evidentiary materials attached to the motion for summary judgment and the response, reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions as to whether Plaintiff's call to the DOL was a significant factor in her discharge, then the issue of retaliatory intent is a jury question. See Okla. Uniform Jury Instructions (Civil), No. 21.9. ¶ 31 The trial court held that Plaintiff failed to establish that a substantial controversy exists as to whether the Plaintiff's actions in contacting the Department of Labor were a significant factor in the employer's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment. In doing so, the trial court failed to appreciate that, although the evidence presented as to each particular fact may not have been disputed, reasonable minds could certainly disagree as to what should be inferred from those facts. Plaintiff was entitled to the reasonable inference that retaliation was a significant factor in Employer's decision to discharge her from employment and to have that issue determined by a jury.