Former employee files lawsuit against Oklahoma State Department of Education, alleges wrongful termination over child advocacy
- Thread starter Polds4OSU
- Start date
Link broken on my end.
Stillwater Townie
Deputy
Bointy had spoken at an Edmond Public School board meeting about children's mental health and teen suicides. I guess one can be too woke from speaking out over those important issues.
Oklahoma State Department of Education faces another lawsuit over firing
A former Edmond school counselor has filed a suit claiming she was wrongfully terminated for speaking out at a school board
www.oklahoman.com
Oklahoma State Department of Education faces another lawsuit over firing
A former Edmond school counselor has filed a suit claiming she was wrongfully terminated for speaking out at a school board
Publishing internal documents after you’ve signed an NDA (Don’t know about teachers, but it’s pretty standard practice for most govt employees) will probably get you fired every day, those two had to know they were taking that chance, so zero sympathy there unless they were exposing criminal activity. Does Bonita have to prove Walters ordered her firing to win her lawsuit, or is he on the hook just for hiring the people who did.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NDAs absolutely aren’t standard practice for most government employees.
In fact, all internal records are subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act unless there is a specific state or federal statute exempting them and specifically making them confidential.
And whistleblower protection goes beyond just “exposing criminal activity”.
Teachers have their own specific whistleblower protection statute.
Last edited:
A specific instruction not to disclose internal communications without an open records act request is very far from a non-disclosure agreement. What you’re calling a NDA isn’t even an NDA.
I was Chief Legal Counsel for a state law enforcement agency for 20 years. Met regularly with other Counsel in State Agencies. Non-disclosure agreements absolutely are not standard practice.
Semantics. You disclose information you signed a paper saying you wouldn’t and you have no leg to stand on when you’re fired for doing so. Whistleblowing is different than sharing information because you don’t like your boss or a certain policy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with Cowboy JD. The threats and firings this administration have made seems to be directed at getting around Open Records. There are only seven types of internal documents considered internal documents, the Chat GTP trap did not meet any of them. Buffoonery and pettiness are never a good mix when running an agency
Semantics: The meaning of words. Words have meaning. The words you used have meaning in a substance over form nature. And you were wrong....way wrong.
And if that paper says you can't disclose what are otherwise public records freely available upon an Open Records Act request, it has the very real likelihood of violating that public employees First Amendment Rights....which is one of the claims involved in this lawsuit. You definitely do have a leg to stand on when you disclose public information contrary the wishes of your boss if you boss's little piece of paper violates your rights.
And you have no idea what the definition of whistleblowing is or whether it is limited to alleged criminal conduct. When I point that out you'll respond with "semantics" again....the safe harbor of every fool that doesn't know what they are talking about.
I was once told by an OSU Law Professor there were only 2 pieces of paper in the state of Oklahoma that No matter what, would stand up in an Oklahoma court regardless of fault etc........A waiver to Go Sky Diving and a Waiver to go Drag Racing....even if you were wronged he said those waivers would stand up in court because you should have known better.
He said any other document created and signed in the state of Oklahoma can be challenged in Court if needed if it violates or is used to violate either parties rights in any way
51 OS 24A.2:
"As the Oklahoma Constitution recognizes and guarantees, all political power is inherent in the people. Thus, it is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government. The Oklahoma Open Records Act shall not create, directly or indirectly, any rights of privacy or any remedies for violation of any rights of privacy; nor shall the Oklahoma Open Records Act, except as specifically set forth in the Oklahoma Open Records Act, establish any procedures for protecting any person from release of information contained in public records. The purpose of this act is to ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power. The privacy interests of individuals are adequately protected in the specific exceptions to the Oklahoma Open Records Act or in the statutes which authorize, create or require the records. Except where specific state or federal statutes create a confidential privilege, persons who submit information to public bodies have no right to keep this information from public access nor reasonable expectation that this information will be kept from public access; provided, the person, agency or political subdivision shall at all times bear the burden of establishing such records are protected by such a confidential privilege. Except as may be required by other statutes, public bodies do not need to follow any procedures for providing access to public records except those specifically required by the Oklahoma Open Records Act."
An "piece of paper"....signed or not....that runs contrary to the clearly stated public policy of the State of Oklahoma is subject to challenge and the person challenging such will definitely "have a leg to stand on."
Will they win their challenge? I don't know. That will be very fact specific. To suggest that they won't have a "leg to stand on" is absolutely asinine though.
"As the Oklahoma Constitution recognizes and guarantees, all political power is inherent in the people. Thus, it is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government. The Oklahoma Open Records Act shall not create, directly or indirectly, any rights of privacy or any remedies for violation of any rights of privacy; nor shall the Oklahoma Open Records Act, except as specifically set forth in the Oklahoma Open Records Act, establish any procedures for protecting any person from release of information contained in public records. The purpose of this act is to ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power. The privacy interests of individuals are adequately protected in the specific exceptions to the Oklahoma Open Records Act or in the statutes which authorize, create or require the records. Except where specific state or federal statutes create a confidential privilege, persons who submit information to public bodies have no right to keep this information from public access nor reasonable expectation that this information will be kept from public access; provided, the person, agency or political subdivision shall at all times bear the burden of establishing such records are protected by such a confidential privilege. Except as may be required by other statutes, public bodies do not need to follow any procedures for providing access to public records except those specifically required by the Oklahoma Open Records Act."
An "piece of paper"....signed or not....that runs contrary to the clearly stated public policy of the State of Oklahoma is subject to challenge and the person challenging such will definitely "have a leg to stand on."
Will they win their challenge? I don't know. That will be very fact specific. To suggest that they won't have a "leg to stand on" is absolutely asinine though.
