Date: 06-24-2013

Case Style: Jim Sisney v. Mike Rampey

Case Number: CJ-2008-6173

Judge: Daman H. Cantrell

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Gary L. Richardson, Michael J. Blaschke, Heidi L. Shadid, S. Randy Sullivan and David R. Keesling, Rachel Lawrence Mor

Defendant's Attorney:

Dean Luthey for Mike Rampey and Narissa Rampey

Kent Bolling Rainey for Independent School District No. 3 of Tulsa County

Belinda Augilar for Douglas Mann

Clark Otto Brewster

Mark Byron Jennings

Marvin G. Lizama

Mark W. Maguire

Marthanda J. Beckworth

for Douglas J. Hudkins

Phyllis L. Walta and Monika Turek for Sharon Whelpley

Description: Jim Sisney sued Mark Rampey, Narissa Rampey, Douglas J. Hudkins, Mary Anne Flippo, Shari Walkins, Sharon Whelpley, Douglas Mann, Independent School District No. 3 and Air Assurance Company on defamation, injurious falsehood, invasion of privacy - false light, tortious interference with business contact, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process theories seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

In September of 2008, Sisney filed his defamation case against Wilkins, Whelpley and Flippo. A month later, he as fired for demeaning and humiliating staff members. Sisney claimed that he was fired for questioning the business practices and Air Assurance.

Later, Sisney was charged with bribery and conspiracy charges after and audit of the Broken Arrow Public Schools in 2012. Former Windstream employee Eddie Dale Bryson was charged with perjury relating to his testimony in the case of former Broken Arrow Public Schools Superintendent Jim Sisney. The bribery charges were eventually dismissed and the State entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with Sisney who agreed to pay $9,500 to the Broken Arrow school foundation. Windstream agreed to pay $100,000 to the foundation.

Defendants Maryanne Flippo, Shari Wilkins and Shaaron Whelpley counterclaimed on abuse of process theories.


Defendants filed numerous motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment challenging the Plaintiff's claims.

On February 28, 2012 the court ruled as follows:

CANTRELL, DAMAN: BEFORE THE COURT IS THE DECISION ON THE DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF. THE COURT HAS REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL ROUND OF BRIEFINGS ON THE ISSUE OF THE IMPACT OF THE POSSIBLE WAIVER ISSUES REGARDING THE DUE PROCESS HEARING. INTERESTINGLY, BOTH SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS AGREE THAT THERE IS A REMEDY REGARDING BREACH OF CONTRACT, LIMITED TO THE ISSUE AS ANNOUNCED IN THE SCHERICH CASE, 591 P.2D 1270 (OKLA. CIV. APP. 1979). SPECIFICALLY SCHERICH HELD “TO SAY SCHERICH HAS NO RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE COURT IS NOT TO SAY HE HAS NO REMEDY FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT, E.G., ARBITRARY DISMISSAL FOR WILLFUL NEGLECT OF DUTY BY THE BOARD-IE., A DISMISSAL FOUNDED ON NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH NEGLECT.”

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THE COURT ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE FOUND A FEDERAL CASE INDICATING THAT THERE MAY BE WAIVER ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM. IN SEABOURN V INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WOODWARD COUNTY, 775 F. SUPP. 2D 1306 (W.D. OKLA 2010) THE COURT HELD THAT A BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM HAD BEEN WAIVED FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DE NOVO REVIEW PROCEDURE BY A TENURED TEACHER. NEITHER PARTY CITES THIS CASE IN ITS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, BUT THE DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES FOR AN ADMINISTRATOR IS DISTINGUISHABLE FOR A CAREER TEACHER, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF WAIVER SEEM SIMILAR. WHILE THIS PARTICULAR WAIVER ISSUE MAY BE A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, AS PLAINTIFF POINTS OUT, THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION IN ARTICLE 2, SECTION 6, GUARANTEES THE RIGHT OF REDRESS IN THE COURTS. BOTH SIDES AGREE (APPARENTLY) THAT A SHERICH BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM MAY STILL PROCEED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PRETERMINATION HEARING. THE ISSUE FOR THE INSTANT MATTER IS WHETHER THERE ARE MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE ON THAT CLAIM. THEREFORE, THE COURT WILL PROCEED TO THAT ISSUE NEXT.

BOTH SIDES REFER TO THE HOERMAN CASE, 913 P.2D 684 (OKLA. CIV. APP. 1995). THIS IS THE ONLY RECENT CASE INVOLVING A SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT THAT APPEARS CLOSE TO THE PRESENT CASE. THE COURT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED THE PLAINTIFF'S BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM AND STATED “CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL OF AN ADMINISTRATOR BE DETERMINED UPON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE,” IN APPLYING THE SCHERICH REMEDY. “TO FIND OTHERWISE WOULD RENDER HOERMAN'S CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS MEANINGLESS. WHILE THERE ARE NO STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL AS THERE WERE IN SCHERICH, THE BOARD HERE WAS NONETHELESS OBLIGATED UNDER THE CONTRACT AND COULD ONLY DISMISS HOERMAN FOR SUCH CAUSE AS WAS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS ALLEGED. WITHOUT ESTABLISHED CAUSE, OR PREVIOUS BREACH BY HOERMAN, DISMISSAL WOULD CONSTITUTE BREACH OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.” ID. THE HOERMAN COURT CONCLUDED THAT “WE CANNOT FIND AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT WESTERN HEIGHTS WAS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT( ON THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS) MERELY BECAUSE IT PURPORTED TO HAVE FOUND “CAUSE” FOR DISMISSAL, OR THAT HOERMAN BREACHED HIS CONTRACT BY THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.” SIMILIARLY, THIS COURT FINDS THERE ARE MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT RELATING TO THE SCHERICH ISSUE IN THIS CASE. WHILE THE COURT AGREES WITH THE DISTRICT THAT SINCE THERE ARE NO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIMS ALLEGED, THE ISSUES MAY NARROW, HOWEVER, THE RELEVANCE OF POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL BIAS AND PRETEXT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AS IT RELATES TO WHETHER THE DECISION WAS IN FACT, “ARBITRARY” MAY WELL BE FAIR GAME AND CERTAINLY BE APPROPRIATE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION, BUT THE EXTENT OF THAT ISSUE NEED NOT BE DECIDED IN REACHING THIS RULING ON THE CONTRACT CLAIM. THE PLAINTIFF HAS SET OUT IN HIS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO PRESENT WHETHER THE SCHERICH CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE TO A FACT-FINDER. THE DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM THEREFORE IS RESPECTFULLY DENIED. NOTICE MAILED TO KENT RAINEY, RACHEL LAWRENCE, PHYLLIS WALTA, GRAYDON LUTHEY, JR, CLARK BREWSTER, AND MEREDITH LINDAMAN. ALSO SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FOR 4-2-12 AT 9:00 AM. NOTICE ALSO SENT TO ALL PARTIES.

Outcome: Dismissed without prejudice as to Narissa Rampey, Douglas Mann, Douglas J. Hudkins, Air Assurance Co., Mike Rampey, Mary Anne Lipppo, Sharon Whelpley, Shari Wilkisn and with prejudice as to Independent School District No. 3 of Tulsa County, Maryann Flippo, Shari Wilkins and Sharon Whelpley.

As part of the settlement, Sisney agreed to apologize to Flippo, Whelpley and Wilkins.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: