Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews $175,000 proposed payment to settle employment discrimination lawsuit
Summary
City legal staff briefed councilors on a proposed $175,000 settlement in case no. 21-CV-196 (Christina Flowers v. City of Tulsa). City attorneys said the settlement followed court and settlement-conference development; staff requested council approval to draw from the sinking fund and levy the repayment over three years.
City legal and treasury staff explained a proposed payment of $175,000 to resolve a wrongful-termination and discrimination lawsuit filed as Christina Flowers v. City of Tulsa (case no. 21-CV-196) during the Urban Economic Development Committee meeting on March 26.
Chad Becker from the city treasury told councilors that finance needs a council resolution to ensure the sinking fund has a sufficient cash balance to pay the judgment before the property-tax levy adjustment. Becker said the city has surplus sinking-fund cash and that, with council approval, finance will issue payment to the claimant and forward paperwork to Tulsa County to levy repayment to the sinking fund over a three-year period.
Lawson Wong, city legal counsel, summarized the litigation history: the case arose from the 2019 termination of a probationary finance employee who alleged discriminatory treatment and retaliation. City attorneys filed motions for summary judgment that dismissed some claims; the judge found other claims had enough factual dispute to be jury issues, and the parties were referred to a settlement conference. The mayor authorized negotiating a settlement, and staff negotiated a $175,000 resolution after the plaintiff initially sought more than $1 million.
Councilors asked whether training or corrective action followed the incident; staff said training was recommended and some training was implemented, and that the supervisors involved are no longer both in the same roles (one retired; the other has since passed away). City staff characterized the settlement as a reasonable resolution after court rulings narrowed and preserved certain claims.
No final council vote was recorded at the committee on March 26; staff asked the council to approve the resolution so finance can issue payment and seek levy recovery over three years.
