Oklahoma lawmaker sues Gov. Stitt over order mandating state employees return to office

State Rep. Andy Fugate (D-Del City) filed a lawsuit Friday challenging Gov. Kevin Stitt’s executive order requiring all full-time state agency employees to return to in-office work by Feb. 1. The lawsuit, filed in Oklahoma County District Court, argues that the order exceeds the governor’s constitutional authority.

Fugate is seeking an injunction to block the order, arguing that only the Legislature has the power to set employment conditions for state agencies. His lawsuit contends that Stitt’s directive, Executive Order 2024-29, effectively creates new law without legislative approval, violating the separation of powers outlined in the Oklahoma Constitution.

“The governor cannot unilaterally impose a policy that fundamentally changes how state agencies operate,” Fugate said during a press conference Friday. “This decision belongs to the Legislature, where it can be debated transparently.”

Press Conference Highlights

During the press conference, Fugate emphasized that the executive order has disrupted thousands of state employees’ lives, many of whom have structured their families and finances around remote work. He highlighted the benefits of telework, including lower commuting costs, increased family time, and greater accessibility for employees with health concerns.

“This lawsuit isn’t about whether remote work is more productive,” Fugate said. “It’s about the governor overstepping his authority.”

Richard LaBarge, the attorney representing Fugate, said the lawsuit is not a partisan attack but a constitutional challenge meant to uphold the separation of powers. He noted that Stitt justified his remote work restrictions by citing efficiency and accountability but argued that such decisions should be made through legislative processes, not executive orders.

“The governor had emergency powers during COVID-19, but no such emergency exists now,” LaBarge said. “This order was issued unilaterally, bypassing public discourse and legislative oversight.”

Policy and Legal Implications

Stitt’s order reverses flexible work arrangements many agencies adopted after COVID-19. It allows only limited exceptions for positions that cannot be performed in-office or when agencies lack sufficient space. The Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) reported that nearly 30% of its workforce was fully remote in 2024, while the Department of Human Services had nearly 44% of employees working from home.

Critics argue that eliminating telework could increase costs by requiring additional office space and make it harder to recruit and retain employees, especially in rural areas. Some legislators, including Republican Sen. Adam Pugh, have raised concerns about the financial burden this mandate could place on agencies.

Fugate’s suit emphasizes that only the Legislature has the authority to set state employment conditions and budgets. The lawsuit cites previous court rulings that limit the governor’s power, arguing that Stitt’s order improperly circumvents the legislative process.

The case has been assigned to Judge Richard Dishman. A hearing on Fugate’s request for a preliminary injunction is expected soon.

Gov. Stitt released the following statement:

"Typical big government, democrat behavior by Rep. Fugate. Suing to let people stay home and not work? That's insane. State employees work for the taxpayer. The data is clear, employees are more productive and accountable when they are working in the office.

"For the good of the taxpayer, work from home is over."