Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed a mandamus judgment ordering Oklahoma City officials to restore Charles T. Hassman to his position as a quarantine officer. The court held that the city manager had authority under the amended city charter to dismiss officers and employees appointed by him, without assigning cause when the city service required dismissal, and that no right of appeal remained under the amended charter. The judgment was reversed with directions to enter judgment for the defendants.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the city manager had authority under the amended Oklahoma City charter to discharge an officer or employee appointed by him.
- Whether the city manager's discharge decision was subject to a cause requirement or appeal to the mayor and city council under the charter's civil-service provisions.
- Whether the city manager had authority to abolish the quarantine-officer position.
Holdings
- Under the amended Oklahoma City charter, the city manager has full and final power to discharge or dismiss officers and employees appointed by him when, in the manager's judgment, the interests of the city service require dismissal.
- The city manager's dismissal of an officer or employee appointed by him need not be for cause, and the dismissal is not subject to an appeal to the mayor and city council.
- The city manager lacked authority under the charter to create or abolish a municipal office not created by the charter, because creation and abolition of such offices are legislative functions vested in the mayor and city council unless delegated by the charter.
Key quotations
“We therefore, hold that the city manager has full power under the charter to discharge or dismiss officers and employees appointed by him, and that this power is final, and that no cause need be assigned therefor except that in the Judgment of the manager the interests to the city require such dismissal.” (162 Okla. 1, 4)
Factual background
Charles T. Hassman had served as Oklahoma City's quarantine officer for several years and, after taking and passing a civil-service examination, continued in the position for approximately three years. On May 30, 1931, City Manager John L. McClelland discharged him without prior notice or hearing. Hassman sought mandamus restoration, while the city argued that the position was an appointive position under the city manager and that the manager's decision was final. The city also asserted that the position had later been abolished, although the Supreme Court found no charter authority for the city manager to abolish an office.
Procedural history
Hassman alleged that he was a classified civil-service quarantine officer who had been discharged without cause, notice, hearing, or an available appeal. The district court issued a peremptory writ directing the municipal defendants to restore him. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed and directed entry of judgment for the defendants.
Remand instructions
Enter judgment for the defendants.