Two Accept $500,000 to End Discrimination Lawsuit Against Tulsa, OK, Fire Department

The city of Tulsa has agreed to pay $500,000 and grant judgment in favor of two women who sued the city after they were passed over for promotion in the Fire Department.

The $500,000 payment to Julie Lynn and Greta Hurt is inclusive of costs and attorney fees, according to a Friday filing in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Attorney Linda Morrissey, who represented the two women, called the settlement “historic.”

“Our clients took this on because, No. 1 they are courageous women,” Morrissey said. “They experienced and observed rampant discrimination within the Fire Department, leadership particularly, … and they decided they were going to take a stand and ask that the Fire Department be held accountable for blatant sex discrimination against both Julie and Greta and other women, too.”

Hurt and Lynn, both ranking officers at the time, sued the city of Tulsa on July 28, 2022, in federal court. The two, both hired in 1998, claimed that the city violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 2021 when Fire Chief Michael Baker and Deputy Chief Brent Goins used an alternative hiring process to promote less qualified male candidates over the female candidates for two vacant assistant chief positions in 2021.

The female Fire Department officers claimed that the city’s use of an alternative screening process during the interview period discriminated against them.

The city of Tulsa disputed the two women’s claims for nearly three years.

In court filings, the city claimed that the use of the alternative screening method was approved by the firefighters’ labor union and saved the city $30,000 in outside assessment costs.

In June, a judge hearing the case ruled in favor of the city on the women’s retaliation and hostile work environment claims. But U.S. District Judge John Russell refused to grant summary judgment to the city on their discrimination claims.

“Could a jury find that the Department’s decision to forgo the established procedure was the product of a desire to save the city and the candidate the cost and burden of an assessment?” Russell asked in his 11-page June 2 ruling.

“The answer to that question is yes,” Russell continued.

The judge answered his next question the same way regarding whether a jury could find, based on the firefighters’ labor union testimony, that the fire chief and deputy chief used the alternative screening process “because they wanted to pick their preferred candidates, regardless of how well they did on an impartial assessment.”

“The answer to that question is also yes,” Russell wrote.

He noted that while the candidates agreed to deviate from the regular hiring process it was not clear that they agreed to the process that was actually utilized.

International Association of Fire Fighters Local 176 President Matt Lay initially refused to sign off on the use of the alternative screening process, saying he “knew what they were trying to do, and it was not fair,” according to Russell’s ruling.

Lay later signed off on the alternative screening process after his executive board met and voted to require him to approve the change, according to Russell’s ruling.

Hurt retired from the Fire Department within a week of filing the lawsuit, citing a toxic work culture and a consistent pattern of harassment for speaking out. She was the department’s chief of health and safety at the time.

Lynn, a district chief when the lawsuit was filed, has since been promoted to deputy fire chief, which is one of the second-highest paying positions in the Fire Department, records show.

The settlement offer from the city came after two failed rounds of settlement negotiations, Morrissey said.

“When we got the offer to confess judgment in which the city acknowledged that the Fire Department had engaged in sex discrimination, that was a turning point for our clients,” Morrissey said.

“It wasn’t just about the money at all,” Morrissey said. “It was about changing the Fire Department’s way of doing business, frankly.”

Morrissey answered ‘yes” when asked whether the settlement makes her clients whole.

“I would say it makes them whole in terms of being validated for making allegations that the city admitted to,” Morrissey said. “They will get some financial reward, but nothing will fully compensate them for the way that they have been treated, the way they’ve been ostracized.”

The city of Tulsa issued the following remarks following a request for comment from the Tulsa World:

“Per standard procedure, the (City) Council will not be asked to approve the settlement, but to authorize payment of the judgment from the Sinking Fund.

“As for the standard settlement language, the judgment does not admit liability of the City but does avoid costs that a trial would potentially incur. Following the settlement conference, the plaintiffs accepted $500,000.

“Please note this case does not involve a change in TFD’s Administrative Operating Procedures or the ability of the City and the Union to make necessary modifications as they see fit by the use of MOU’s (memorandums of understanding). This was a Title VII case dating back to the August 2021 FD-06 promotional process.”

------------

© 2025 Tulsa World, Okla.. Visit www.tulsaworld.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.