Billy E. "Rusty" Rhoades, III, et al. v. The State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Governor Kevin Stitt, et al.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendants violated their civil rights.



This case arises from the separation of Plaintiff Harrell as Colonel of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol in September 2019. Defendant Jason Nelson, via authority granted him by the Governor, notified Plaintiff by telephone of three options-he could either resign, retire, or be terminated.[2] Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants Stitt, Keating, and Nelson violated his constitutional rights-specifically his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant Stitt seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff's constitutional claims, arguing the absence of factual disputes, and that he is entitled to prevail on the merits.[3] He further asserts the defense of qualified immunity. "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would haveknown.” White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78-79 (2017)(per curiam)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Defendant Stitt is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the time of Plaintiff Harrell's separation that he had a statutory right of reversion thereby creating a property right in his continued employment with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. Furthermore, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his decision to retire was voluntary or coerced, that is whether Defendant Stitt deprived him of his property interest without due process. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Defendant Stitt's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.