Okla. Capt. Sues Deputy Chief Over Discipline

A Tulsa police captain who refused to require that some of his subordinates attend an upcoming Law Enforcement Appreciation Day at a Tulsa mosque filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday, claiming that his First Amendment rights have been violated.

Capt. Paul Fields also claims that Deputy Chief Daryl Webster -- the sole defendant in the case at this point -- retaliated against him for his "exercise of his First Amendment Rights" and singled Fields out for disparate treatment.

Fields asked for $1 in nominal damages on each of his two claims, attorneys' fees and whatever other relief "the court deems just and proper under the circumstances."

Fields was temporarily transferred Monday afternoon from the Police Department's Riverside Division to another patrol shift at the Mingo Valley Division.

The Law Enforcement Appreciation Day is to be held at the mosque of the Islamic Society of Tulsa on March 4. Police Chief Chuck Jordan has said the society scheduled the event to show its appreciation for the officers' response to a recent

threat against it.

In an e-mail sent by Tulsa Fraternal Order of Police Board of Directors Chairman Clay Ballenger to FOP members on Monday, Ballenger said Fields' refusal "was based on the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, departmental policy, and past practices of the Tulsa Police Department."

The lawsuit was filed just before the U.S. District Court in Tulsa closed for the day at 4:30 p.m. Wednesday.

Fields and attorney Scott Wood had approached the counter in the Court Clerk's Office about 3:55 p.m. but then went into the attorney lounge in the Page Belcher Federal Building, 333 W. Fourth St., to make a last-ditch telephone effort to settle the matter short of litigation.

Wood said, "We've reached out to the city to try to come up with a policy that will work for everyone" in such situations.

City Litigation Division Manager Gerry Bender said Wednesday evening that "some alternatives" that he did not wish to divulge were explored before the lawsuit was filed.

Fields said Wednesday that he is prohibited by departmental policy from making any comments to the media about the situation.

Wood also would not discuss the details of his discussions with Bender that immediately preceded the filing of the complaint. However, Wood did say that there was an unspecified "sticking point" that led to the decision to go ahead and file the case.

The lawsuit, randomly assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell, contains no request for rapid legal relief, such as a temporary restraining order or an injunction.

Bender said it was "amazing" to him why the lawsuit was filed so quickly, unless the move was meant to gain some sort "public opinion advantage" for the plaintiff.

The Court Clerk's Office reportedly received phone calls earlier on Wednesday from national media who apparently had heard rumors of a planned lawsuit.

Reached by cell phone late Wednesday, Webster said he had no comment about the civil suit. He said he has not been served and will consult with legal counsel.

In a Feb. 18 interoffice correspondence, Webster told Fields that the Islamic event organizers needed to know how many Police Department personnel would be attending so that things such as food and tours could be scheduled.

Webster wrote then that voluntary participation is desirable, "but should voluntary response not be up to task, assignment would be the next alternative." He added that "there is no distinction between performing our lawful duties in a reactive manner (call response) and doing so in a proactive manner (community outreach)."

In his lawsuit, Fields says that "there was no agenda on the invitation flier for the invited officers to discuss crime or crime-related issues of any kind."

Jordan said Tuesday that it is not unusual for the Police Department to assign officers to go to community events to get to know members of the community and to share public-safety information. The department has never selected whom it provides services for "based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity or preferences," he said.

Jordan also said he "would never assign a police officer to participate in a religious service."

However, Fields wrote in his lawsuit that he sent an e-mail to his immediate supervisor saying that while he has no problem with officers attending next week's event on a voluntary basis, he believes that ordering them to do so is unlawful and in "direct conflict with my personal religious convictions, as well as to be conscience shocking."

Wood said more defendants and claims could be added in future amended versions of the lawsuit. He said Fields has suffered no loss of pay or benefits as of yet due to the situation.

McClatchy-Tribune News Service