Jones v. State ex re. Office of Juvenile Affairs

• Decision Date: 20 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. 107,379.,107,379.
• Citation: 2011 OK 105,161 Lab.Cas. P 61216,33 IER Cases 272,268 P.3d 72
• Parties: Mary Roshawn JONES, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel., OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS, Defendant/Appellee.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

161 Lab.Cas. P 61,216

2011 OK 105

268 P.3d 72

33 IER Cases 272

Mary Roshawn JONES, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel., OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 107,379.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 20, 2011.

CERTIORARI TO THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION 3; Honorable Deborah Shallcross, Trial Judge¶ 0 The plaintiff/appellee, Mary Roshawn Jones was a classified state employee. She was terminated from her employment after a hearing, but did not exhaust her administrative remedies. Instead, she filed a civil suit against the State of Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA) alleging wilful violations of 40 O.S. Supp.2010 § 551 et seq., the Oklahoma Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act (SWDATA). The OJA filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Jones had to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to bringing action under SWDATA. The trial court granted the OJA's motion. The employee appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court. The provisions of SWDATA, construed in their entirety, do not require the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to the filing of a civil action by a classified state employee.CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Charles C. Vaught, Kevin S. Marritt, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Lisa Erickson Endres, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees.

KAUGER, J.:

¶ 1 The first impression issue presented here is whether the provisions of the Oklahoma Standards for Drug and Alcohol Testing Act (SWDATA), 40 O.S. §§ 551–563 permit a classified state employee to file an action in district court prior to the exhaustion of administrative remedies. We hold that SWDATA provides an independent cause of action which authorizes a classified state employee to file an action in the district court for a wilful violation of the act without first exhausting the employee's administrative remedies.

FACTS

¶ 2 The plaintiff/appellant, Mary Roshawn Jones (Jones/employee), was a full-time, classified employee of the defendant/appellee, Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA/employer), working at the L.E. Rader Center (Center). On May 3, 2007, Jones was bitten by a spider while at work. On May 8, 2007, Jones sought medical treatment for the spider bite, at the Center. Jones and Linda R. Flood, R.N., an employee of the Center, signed a Document entitled “Employee Accident Evaluation Report” and attached to this form was “An Authorization to Treat Form.” ¹ The box on the form indicating that drug testing was required was blank. On May 17, 2007, Jones signed the OJA Report and Review of Job–Related Accidental Injury or Illness. Employee checked the “no” box on the form when asked if she was asked to submit to a drug test as a result of this accident.

¶ 3 The time lines of the actions of both employee and employer from Jones' return to work until she took a drug test on June 26 are convoluted. The OJA alleges that they repeatedly tried to get Jones to complete paperwork relating to her work-related injury. The OJA also alleges that Jones' delay in completing the paperwork resulted in the delay in requesting the drug test. The deposition of the OJA risk manager, Thomas Micah, states that the reason Jones was required to be drug tested was because she sought medical treatment for the spider bite.² Jones alleges that the reason for the required drug test were a series of harassing and threatening calls to the Center by a former boyfriend.

¶ 4 On June 26, 2007, at 1:30 p.m., the employee was told to report to Concerta, an approved Board of Health drug sample collection facility. The records of Concerta indicate that Jones gave four urine samples, but they were all insufficient for testing. She could not provide a sufficient test sample within the requisite time period and left the testing facility. ³ Jones states that she had drug tests on June 27, 2007, and June 29, 2007, and that both were negative.

¶ 5 On July 20, 2007, Ms. Jones received Notice of Proposed Action–Discharge. After an OJA hearing, the employee was discharged, effective August 15, 2007. She filed no administrative appeal from the discharge with the Merit Protection Commission.

¶ 6 On January 14, 2008, Jones filed a civil case, alleging violations of 40 O.S. Supp.1993 § 551 et seq.; she sought compensatory and punitive damages and lost wages, or, in the alternative, restoration to employment. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted on June 30, 2009. The trial court, in part,⁴ based this decision on Jones failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that if an employer provides an administrative remedy, then the employee must exhaust all of the employer's internal administrative remedies before bringing a civil action under SWDATA. We granted certiorari to address the exhaustion requirement.

¶ 7 THE OKLAHOMA STANDARDS FOR WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING (SWDATA) DO NOT REQUIRE A CLASSIFIED STATE EMPLOYEE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PRIOR TO INSTITUTING AN ACTION IN DISTRICT COURT.

¶ 8 Jones did not exhaust her administrative remedies; she brought an action in the district court, seeking compensatory damages, lost wages and punitive damages, or, in the alternative, restoration to employment, alleging a violation of 40 O.S. Supp.1993 § 563(A) which provides:

A. Any person aggrieved by a wilful violation of the Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act may institute a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction within two (2) years of the person's discovery of the alleged wilful violation or of the exhaustion of any internal administrative remedies available to the person, or be barred from obtaining the relief provided for in subsection B of this section. B. A prevailing party may be awarded declaratory or injunctive relief and compensatory damages which may include, but not be limited to, employment, reinstatement, promotion, the payment of lost wages and other remuneration to which the person would have been entitled and payment of and reinstatement to full benefits and seniority rights. Reasonable costs and attorney fees may be awarded to the prevailing party. [Emphasis added.]

¶ 9 Jones argues that the provisions of 40 O.S. Supp.1993 § 563 permit her to file an action in district court without the prior exhaustion of administrative remedies. She interprets the statute to provide the litigant with a choice between the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to the filing of a civil action or the filing of an action within two years of the date of the alleged date of the violation of the act without exhausting the administrative remedies.

¶ 10 The employer argues that the provisions of 40 O.S. Supp.1993 § 563 must be construed in tandem with the statutory provisions set forth at 74 O.S. Supp.1995 § 840–6.7 ⁵ (originally codified in 1984) and the case law that requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies before a discharged classified employee may bring action in the district court.

¶ 11 The OJA has enacted, pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, a Drug Policy.⁶ The policy is designed to maintain an alcohol and drug free work environment and to test job applicants and employees for the illegal use of drugs.⁷ It provides that post accident testing may be required if an employee has sustained a work-related injury.⁸ An employee's refusal to test is grounds for discipline, up to and including discharge. ⁹ A terminated employee has grievance and appeal rights, as provided by the OJA Rules and the Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission.¹⁰

¶ 12 It has long been established in Oklahoma that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite for resort to the courts by an employee of the State when that employee seeks redress under the statutes that govern the discipline and termination of classified state employee.¹¹ The rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is designed to aid in the orderly administration of justice and to prevent transfer to the courts of duties imposed by law on administrative agencies. ¹² These are well established tenants of the laws relating to the termination of the employment of a classified State employee.

¶ 13 SWDATA was enacted by the Legislature, almost ten years after the original codification in 1984 of the statute requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies, 74 O.S. Supp.1995 § 840–6.7. SWDATA is one of numerous Federal and state statutes governing employee drug testing enacted in the 1980's and the 1990's. Drug testing statutes were enacted to balance the employee's constitutional rights and the movement for a drug free workplace. ¹³ SWDATA provides a cause of action open to both public and private employees in the State of Oklahoma if the provisions of the act concerning regulated employee drug testing are wilfully violated.¹⁴ SWDATA is designed to protect both the rights of the employer and the rights of the employee. It is a specific act that must be construed alongside the general statutory provisions concerning the termination of classified State employees.

¶ 14 Where a matter is addressed by two statutes, one specific and the other general, the specific statute governs over the general provision. ¹⁵ Title 40 O.S. Supp.1993 § 563(A) is a specific statute granting a public employee the right to bring an action under SWDATA if a wilful violation of rights is alleged. It was passed by the legislature almost ten years after 74 O.S. Supp.1995 § 840–6.7. The provisions of the specific statute granting the state employee a specific right control over the general exhaustion of remedies statute.

¶ 15 The intent expressed by the SWDATA language also supports the contention that this is a stand—alone, specific and controlling statute. Intent...