Read the filing in which the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association claims that Oral Roberts Ministries can’t be sued

Read the filing in which ORU and the defendants respond to Brookers’ revised lawsuit

The defendants rebut claims made by two ex-professors.

Oral Roberts University and other defendants in a lawsuit filed by former professors addressed the professors' legal claims point by point in a court filing Friday and asked the court to dismiss each claim and the entire lawsuit.

pu,UFslams ORU, Oral Roberts Ministries, the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association and ORU administrators Wendy Shirk and Jeff Ogle responded to the latest version of Tim and Paulita Brooker's lawsuit.

The Brookers, who are married, claim that they wrongfully lost their jobs and more. Professor John Swails originally was part of the lawsuit, but he settled his portion of the case last month and was rehired by ORU.

The defendants' response to each of the plaintiffs' claims follows:

Wrongful discharge: Tim Brooker does not

The defendants allege that Brooker's supposed wrongful discharge must be tied to an Oklahoma law or policy.

Brooker claims in his lawsuit that he was wrongfully forced to quit because he helped hand over to ORU regents a report that alleged wrongdoing by former ORU President Richard Roberts and his family. ORU and the defendants responded Friday that the alleged wrongdoing does not violate Oklahoma public policy.

"Unhappiness with an employer's management style and decisions is not a valid concern relative to public policy," the defendants say.

They cite a legal case to support their contention that Brooker doesn't have a valid whistleblower claim.

They also claim that ORU's and others' alleged wrongdoing does not constitute "a direct threat to the health and interests of the general public," which they say would be legally required for Brooker to claim wrongful discharge.

To claim wrongful or "constructive" discharge, the Brookers also would have needed to establish that they were at-will employees, meaning ORU could have fired them for any reason, the defendants claim. Instead, the Brookers say in their suit that they worked under written and oral contracts.

Paulita Brooker claims that she lost her job because an other professor reported sexual harassment against yet another professor and because her husband, Tim Brooker, had handed over the report of alleged wrongdoing. Those allegations don't meet the legal requirements for claiming to have been wrongfully fired, the defendants contend.

Breach of contract: Also, the Brookers never say how ORU and the defendants violated their contracts, so they can't claim that their contracts were breached, the defendants maintain.

Negligence: The Brookers can't make a legal claim that ORU, Oral Roberts Ministries and the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association failed to supervise Shirk and Ogle properly because the Brookers are not party to that matter and they haven't named injuries they suffered because of the alleged negligence, the court filing says.

Civil conspiracy: The Brookers can't claim that the defendants conspired to discharge and defame them because the Brookers don't back up their claim that the defendants were taking illegal actions, the defendants say. Tim Brooker resigned, and Paulita Brooker's contract wasn't renewed, neither of which is illegal, the defendants' filing says.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress: The defendants contend that their own alleged misconduct -- which they deny -- if true, would not be outrageous enough for the Brookers to claim to have suffered resulting emotional distress.

Fraud: The defendants maintain that the Brookers weren't specific enough in alleging that ORU, the evangelist association, the ministries and Ogle gave them false information, nor did they say how ORU and the other defendants benefited from the alleged fraud.

Interference with contract: The defendants allege that only someone who is not part of a contract can break the interference law. The Brookers also don't give specifics about how this law allegedly was broken, the defendants claim.

Libel/slander/defamation: Maligning statements allegedly made by the defendants occurred in summer 2006, based on the Brookers' lawsuit, the defendants say, so this legal claim was made too long after the incidents are alleged to have occurred. Also, the defendants contend, the Brookers don't state the what "false or defamatory statement" allegedly made against them was.

Libel/slander/defamation per se: These claims don't meet the legal standards, the defendants contend.

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