The Edmond Sun

Local News

Discussion

July 29, 2010

Judge sides with city in employment suit

Mark Schlachtenhaufen The Edmond Sun

EDMOND — A U.S. district judge ruled in favor of the City of Edmond and two of its employees in a wrongful termination suit filed against them.

In a brief opinion, Chief U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron ruled last week that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be granted.

Steve Murdock, city attorney for Edmond, said the city is very pleased with the court’s ruling. He declined further comment.

Phyllis Walta, attorney for Uwe Turek, could not be reached for comment Thursday. It was not clear if any legal options remained for the plaintiff.

On April 2, the defendants — the city, Human Resource Director Anita Breen and City Manager Larry Stevens — filed a motion for summary judgment.

Turek, the plaintiff, whose national origin is German, was hired by the city in 1990 and promoted to meter services coordinator in 1992, according to court records.

Turek was fired for allegedly making derogatory statements concerning his supervisor. He speaks with a heavy German accent and denied ever making such statements. Turek was notified of his termination by letter from Breen dated May 17, 2007. He appealed to Stevens, who upheld Breen’s decision.

In the original complaint, filed on Sept. 9, 2008 in U.S. District Court, the plaintiff claimed the investigations conducted by Breen and Stevens were not fair, and that he was treated differently from other employees similarly situated. He claimed he suffered related injuries and the allegations constituted violations of the Civil Rights Act.

In their motion, the defendants said the plaintiff, who had an alleged disability, was fired after saying his female supervisor should be raped. Turek was notified after two co-workers told Human Resources about that conversation.

The city pointed out that the plaintiff had signed its “Harassment Policy Acknowledgment Form,” which provided that he could be fired for harassing behavior. He was also allowed to appeal Breen’s decision to Stevens.

In court papers, the city said a statement made by a male employee that his female supervisor should be raped is a valid cause for termination, as acknowledged by the plaintiff during his deposition.

The city also pointed out that Breen and Stevens did nothing wrong in the process of firing the plaintiff, that he merely disagreed with their conclusion to do so. The plaintiff said even if he had made the statement regarding his supervisor, Edmond should have made an exception for him, the city stated.

Despite the two witness accounts, the plaintiff refused to recant, and disputed the validity of their statements in concluding that he was wrongfully terminated, the city stated.

“Consequently, his employers had little choice but to weigh the evidence before them and terminate Plaintiff,” the city stated in its motion for summary judgment. “Plaintiff understands comments regarding raping his supervisor present an obvious threat of danger.”

The city stated the plaintiff’s firing was “entirely justified and undertaken without prejudice of any kind” and that his testimony confirmed “he has no factual basis for his claims of national origin discrimination.”



marks@edmondsun.com | 341-2121, ext. 108

Text Only
Local News