He wants to be reinstated as chairman of the department with benefits and back pay.

One of the three professors suing Oral Roberts University asked for his job back in court filings on Friday.

John Swails, one of the plaintiffs, asked to be reinstated as history, humanities and government department chairman and tenured history professor, asked that his firing be removed from his record and requested back pay, benefits, eligibility for promotion and the restoration of the department to its previous state.

Also on Friday, the professors filed an application with the court to file a fourth version of their lawsuit, which would add Oral Roberts Ministries and its board and Lindsay Roberts, ORU President Richard Roberts' wife, as defendants.

The professors now claim the ministries own ORU, that the two organizations' finances are mixed together and, therefore, they are one and the same. Lindsay Roberts is a "lifetime spiritual regent" on the ORU board and is an officer of the ministries.

The professors previously claimed in their lawsuit that the ORU board of regents was negligent in overseeing the administrators and the university, who

The professors previously had cited as an example of alleged negligence that ORU fired its comptroller and shredded documents, "constituting spoilation of evidence." That example was not in the latest version of the lawsuit.

The professors' attorney, Gary Richardson, said last month that the allegation of shredded documents was based on an ORU faculty member observing security guards in an ORU elevator, accompanying shredded documents from the floor that housed the comptroller's office.

On Friday, the professors added a legal claim of fraud, saying they "were induced to accept employment and to continue employment pursuant to false pretenses, misrepresentations and omissions," their lawsuit says. They specifically claim that ORU and Vice Provost Jeff Ogle, two of the defendants, were false and misleading in recruiting for mer professor Paulita Brooker, one of the plaintiffs.

The professors originally sued because they allege they were wrongfully fired or forced to resign.

The professors added a legal claim of "tortious interference with contract," alleging the defendants interfered with the professors' "contracts and business relationships" out of "a malicious, improper and intentional plan to harm and damage" the professors. The professors removed their legal claim of civil conspiracy by ORU officials to remove them from their jobs.

Other assertions

The professors allege in their court filing that ORU and Oral Roberts Ministries board members, because of their "opulent and extravagant lifestyles," are "doubtless . . . callous to the point of negligence regarding the excesses of" Richard and Lindsay Roberts. A report allegedly written by Lindsay Roberts' sister, Stephanie Cantees, alleged the Roberts family used ORU and ministries money and resources for itself.

The Robertses have denied the allegations and have said Cantees' report that Richard Roberts saw three years ago consisted of false rumors.

This week, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked the leaders of six ministries -- including three ORU regents -- for information about how their expenses relate to the tax-exempt purposes of their organizations, but Grassley said in a press release, "I don't want to conclude that there's a problem, but I have an obligation to donors and the taxpayers to find out more."

The ORU board is investigating the claims of the report allegedly written by Cantees and will decide whether Richard Roberts returns from a leave of absence to the ORU presidency.

The professors denied the defendants' claims that the report had been stolen from the computer of Cantees. The professors said Cantees loaned her laptop computer, with passwords, to students to use on a Tulsa mayoral campaign last year.

More court filings

Also Friday, a court filing by the professors said the defen dants are not allowed to ask for all parties and attorneys to stop speaking about the case outside of court. They also said the defendants do not meet the high standard to invoke prior restraint on speech and publication.

The professors quoted a 1976 court case, Nebraska Press Association versus Stuart, saying, "Pretrial publicity, even pervasive, adverse publicity, does not inevitably lead to an unfair trial." The professors also said publicity has not been one-sided, as the defendants claim, and they point out the defendants have given a number of interviews with media.

Also Friday, the professors told the court that the third version of their lawsuit complies with the law and the local rule and should be answered by defendants.

April Marciszewski 581-8475
april.marciszewski@tulsaworld.com