Matthew Colwell Lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
1. MATTHEW COLWELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No.
)
1. RYAN WALTERS, in his official capacity ) Civil Rights Action
as Superintendent of Public Instruction, ) Arising in Oklahoma County
and in his individual capacity, and )
)
)
2. MATT LANGSTON, in his official capacity )
as Chief Policy Advisor Administrative )
Services, and in his individual capacity, )
) Jury Trial Demanded
Defendants. ) Attorney Lien Claimed
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, and for his cause of action herein alleges and
states as follows:
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff is Matthew Colwell, an adult male, who resides in Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma.
2. The Defendants are:
A. Ryan Walters, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Oklahoma,
in both his official and in his individual capacity, and
B. Matt Langston, Chief Policy Advisor Administrative Services for the
Oklahoma Department of Education, both officially and in his individual
capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Plaintiff’s action is for wrongful and retaliatory termination in violation of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution which protects freedom of speech, and
1
also for a policy unlawfully chilling such First Amendment rights. Such claim is
made actionable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3).
4. All of the actions complained of herein occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and
each Defendant may be served in that county, wherefore venue is proper in this Court
under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. The Plaintiff was employed by Oklahoma Department of Education working as
Program Manager of School Success from January 19, 2022 until his wrongful
termination on May 26, 2023.
6. Ryan Walters is Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Oklahoma, and,
in that capacity, he is the sole decisionmaker regarding the hiring and firing of
employees in the Oklahoma Department of Education.
7. Matt Langston is the Chief Policy Advisor of Administrative Services for the
Oklahoma Department of Education.
8. On May 25, 2023, Defendant Walters, acting under color of law, caused an email to
be sent threatening all employees of the Oklahoma Department of Education with
termination if any employee “leaked” internal documents to the press. The email
closed by stating: “To recap, any employee found leaking information to the press will
face immediate termination.” Such email was prepared and signed by Matt Langston.
9. Matt Langston publicly stated that he prepared this email in a format so that he could
trap employees who shared the above referenced email to the press or to other third
parties.
10. There were two purposes for this email. The first was to intimidate and chill the First
Amendment rights of employees. The second was to retaliate against employees who
shared information about matters of public concern in the Department of Education
with members of the press or outside officials.
11. On May 26, 2023, Walters terminated the Plaintiff’s employment for sharing
2
information with the office of the Oklahoma Attorney General and with an Oklahoma
State Representative.
12. Mr. Colwell’s communication, actual or perceived, was not part of his official duties.
To the contrary, such communications would be against the express directive of the
Defendants and therefore were made in his capacity as a citizen.
13. The Department of Education is a public, constitutional agency of the State of
Oklahoma and is charged with advancing education of students in the State of
Oklahoma. Given the nature and scope of the activities of the Department of
Education, its activities are matters of public concern. The information shared was
a memorandum explaining that Walters’ proposed teacher pay plan contravened the
requirements of federal and state laws and could have the effect of costing the State
of Oklahoma approximately $18,000,000.
14. There is no governmental interest outweighing Mr. Colwell’s First Amendment rights.
No disruption, interruption or interference with the proper activities of the Department
of Education occurred as a result of the claimed speech.
15. The motivating factor for Mr. Colwell’s termination was his perceived speech.
16. The Defendants have claimed no other ‘cause’ for the Plaintiff’s termination, and
therefore the same result could not have been reached if unlawful retaliation had not
been present.
17. In sending out the threatening email above described, both Walters and Langston were
acting under color of state law in that the acts taken could not have been
accomplished without use of their positions as state officials.
18. In terminating the Plaintiff, Mr. Walters was acting under color of state law in that
Walters is the official vested with final decisionmaking and final policy making for
terminating employees. Langston directly and personally participated in such
termination by devising and setting up an email trap to find employees who
3
disseminated information to persons outside the Department, and by personally
threatening the termination of any employee who violated this policy.
COUNT I
Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations and further alleges:
19. This Count is directed to Defendants Walters and Langston in their official capacities
only and it seeks only prospective declaratory and equitable relief.
20. The email described in Par. 8, above, was a direct threat which would chill employees
from the exercise of their First Amendment rights.
21. Such action is an unlawful prior restraint on speech which, because it is overly broad
and all-inclusive, facially would encompass speech protected by the First
Amendment.
22. There is an actual and live controversy in that the Defendants assert the validity of
their actions in threatening the employment of persons with the Department, and the
Plaintiff disputes the legality or validity of such an order.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court declare the May 25, 2023, emails are
an unlawful and overly broad prior restraint on the First Amendment rights of the employees
in the Department of Education and to prospectively enjoin such Defendants from future
enforcement of the policies described therein.
COUNT II
Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations and further alleges:
23. This Count is directed towards Defendants Walters and Langston in their individual
capacities only.
24. Plaintiff’s termination was the direct result of supposedly violating Defendants’
prohibition against sharing internal communications with persons outside of the
Department of Education.
25. At the direct result of the Defendants’ actions, the Plaintiff lost his employment and
4
is suffering on-going financial losses together with emotional distress for which he
is entitled to monetary compensation.
26. Because the actions about described were willful, malicious or, at the least, in reckless
disregard of the Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, Plaintiff is entitled to an award
of punitive damages against each Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that a judgment be entered against each Defendant,
jointly and severally, for all of Plaintiff’s actual damages, for punitive damages and that the
Plaintiff be awarded her costs and fees.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2023.
HAMMONS, HURST & ASSOCIATES
s/ Mark Hammons
Mark Hammons, OBA No. 3784
Amber L. Hurst, OBA No. 21231
325 Dean A. McGee Avenue
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-6100
Facsimile: (405) 235-6111
Email: katie@hammonslaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
Jury Trial Demanded
Attorney Lien Claimed

Matthew Colwell Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matthew Colwell Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matthew Colwell Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

HAMMONS, HURST & ASSOCIATES

You might also like