Megan Slinkard and Jon Slinkard v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, doing business as Tulsa Public Schools; Alpha Benson; Deborah Gist

Slinkard · United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma · June 15, 2026 · No. No. 23-cv-354-JDR-SH

Summary

The court denied Tulsa Public Schools’ motion for reconsideration of its denial of summary judgment in the Slinkards’ constitutional-rights action. The court held that its prior dismissal of claims against individual defendants at the pleading stage did not constitute substantive merits determinations binding on the school district, and that the district’s newly raised argument concerning Ms. Slinkard’s status as a protected support employee was not properly presented on reconsideration. The court stated that the school district could raise that argument at trial.

Holdings

  1. A ruling granting a motion to dismiss determines only whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim against the defendants subject to that motion; it does not constitute a substantive merits determination controlling claims against other, undismissed defendants.
  2. A motion for reconsideration is not a proper vehicle for presenting a new substantive legal argument that was not raised in the original motion for summary judgment.
  3. Denial of summary judgment does not establish that the nonmoving party is entitled to judgment, resolve disputed factual or legal questions in that party's favor, or preclude the movant from presenting other arguments at trial.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court's prior dismissal of claims against individual school officials constituted a substantive merits determination that controlled the surviving claims against Tulsa Public Schools.
  2. Whether Tulsa Public Schools could use a motion for reconsideration to raise a new argument that Ms. Slinkard was not a statutory support employee because she had worked fewer than 172 days.
  3. Whether denial of summary judgment constituted a determination that Ms. Slinkard was entitled to a termination hearing or otherwise precluded Tulsa Public Schools from presenting additional arguments at trial.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (7)

  • Warren v. Am. Bankers Ins. of Fla., 507 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Jones v. City of Comanche, Oklahoma, No. 25-6016, 2025 WL 3260611, at *3 (10th Cir. Nov. 24, 2025)(followed)
  • Hampton v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 631 F. Supp. 3d 1041, 1045 (E.D. Okla. 2022)(followed)
  • Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 1301 (10th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Dessar v. Bank of Am. Nat. Tr. & Sav. Ass'n, 353 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir. 1965)(followed)
  • Speeney v. Rutgers, 673 F. App'x 149, 152 n.2 (3d Cir. 2016)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…