Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—W.D. Okla.: White public employee’s claims of reverse race discrimination survive dismissal, (Jun 5, 2025)

By Nadine E. Roddy, J.D.

As assessed by the allegations of the complaint, the city officials were not entitled to dismissal on the ground of qualified immunity.

City officials were not entitled to qualified immunity on a discharged employee’s claims of reverse race discrimination, a federal district court sitting in Oklahoma has ruled. The complaint alleged background circumstances sufficient to meet the reverse discrimination threshold (Baker v. City of Oklahoma City, No. 5:24-cv-00763-R (W.D. Okla. June 3, 2025)).

A discharged long-time employee—a white male—brought suit against his former employer, the City of Oklahoma City, and two of its officials, asserting claims of age, race, and gender discrimination under the ADEA, Section 1981, and Title VII. According to the complaint, the employee had risen to the position of Unit Operations Supervisor over the years. At one point, he hired someone for a job as Field Operations Supervisor. Shortly thereafter, the employee began receiving reports from other employees that new hire was conducting himself in an unprofessional manner. The employee reported the alleged misconduct to his supervisor (Supervisor), and the new hire was subsequently placed on a special assignment under different supervision.

Nevertheless, the issues with the new hire continued. The employee learned from a third-party investigator that the new hire had filed a complaint against him, which the investigator described as “meritless.” When interviewed by the investigator, the Supervisor denied that the employee was harassing the new hire. Even so, the employee was required to attend mediation to resolve the situation with the new hire. The effort was unsuccessful, as even the mediator noted that no one could work with the new hire.

Just over a month later, the employee received a letter from a city official, asserting that the employee had violated a policy prohibiting harassment. A pre-determination hearing ensued, presided over by the Supervisor, the official, and two management specialists. The official instructed the employee that either he or his representative could speak, but not both. Non-white employees were not subject to similar restrictions. The employee continued working for several months while the decision was pending.

Meanwhile, the new hire’s behavior became so problematic that employees requested an armed guard for the job site. The employee passed on the request to the Supervisor and the official, but when he met with them the next day he was discharged. He was replaced by a black female who had violated the same policy as alleged against the employee, and who had a record of 31 grievances filed against her. Further, despite the new hire being found in violation of several city policies, he was not terminated.

The Supervisor and the official filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, contending that (1) the employee’s Section 1981 claim was not asserted under Section 1983, (2) the employee failed to allege personal participation, intentional discrimination, or background circumstances sufficient to support a claim of reverse race discrimination under Section 1981, and (3) qualified immunity foreclosed their individual liability.

Section 1981 claim. The court noted ample Tenth Circuit precedent holding that even though a complaint does not mention Section 1983, a court will nonetheless construe all Section 1981 claims as asserted through Section 1983. Thus, the employee’s Section 1981 claims would not be dismissed for failure to reference Section 1983.

Qualified immunity defense. Noting that on a motion to dismiss, it is the defendant’s conduct as alleged in the complaint that is scrutinized for constitutionality, the court determined that the employee had plausibly alleged reverse racial discrimination violative of Section 1981. Although the 12(b)(6) standard does not require a plaintiff establish a prima facie case in their complaint, the elements of each alleged cause of action help to determine whether the complaint has set forth a plausible claim. In this case, the complaint alleged background circumstances sufficient to meet the reverse discrimination threshold. Among other things, it alleged that the employer preferred minority applicants over white applicants in the hiring process, as demonstrated by the allegation that the Supervisor had counseled the employee against hiring a more qualified white applicant based on the factor of race, and that employees were required to undergo discriminatory diversity training.

The employee also plausibly alleged that the discrimination was purposeful. The complaint contained allegations that the official, with the Supervisor’s acquiescence, limited his speaking rights at his predetermination hearing because of his race, and that non-white employees were not so limited. Further, he was replaced by a black woman with 31 grievances filed against her after he was terminated for a singular grievance.

Moreover, the law was clearly established at the relevant time that racial discrimination in public employment, including reverse discrimination, is prohibited by the Constitution and Section 1981. Given the egregious nature of the defendants’ alleged violations, the court found that no reasonable official could have interpreted the law as permitting their actions.

For these reasons, the court denied the individual defendants’ motions to dismiss.

The case is No. 5:24-cv-00763-R.

Judge: Russell, D.

Attorneys: Jana Beth Leonard (Leonard & Associates) for Steven Baker. Brett M. Logan, Municipal Counselor's Office, for the City of Oklahoma City.

Companies: The City of Oklahoma City

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination CoverageLiability Procedure OklahomaNews