A Democratic lawmaker in Oklahoma has taken legal action against Governor Kevin Stitt over his recent return-to-work mandate for state employees. Rep. Andy Fugate, representing Del City, argues that the governor has overstepped his authority and infringed upon decisions that the legislative branch should make.
Fugate filed a lawsuit on Friday in the Oklahoma County district court requesting a temporary injunction to halt Governor Stitt’s executive order issued on December 18, 2024. The order required state employees to return to in-person work by February 1, 2025, with some exceptions. Fugate believes that this policy has caused confusion and hardship for state workers, many of whom have benefited from the work-from-home arrangements implemented during the pandemic.
Fugate argued that state employees are hired to serve the people, not the governor, and that the return-to-work mandate disrupts the work-life balance that many employees have enjoyed during the pandemic. He emphasized that today’s workforce is more about productivity than physical presence in the office. “Today’s workers are knowledge workers, not factory workers. We measure workers by their productivity, not by their presence,” said Fugate.
He stressed that his lawsuit is not about whether working from home is more productive but rather about the governor’s authority. “Ultimately, this lawsuit is about the office of the governor overstepping its authority,” Fugate said.
Stitt’s executive order allowed state agencies to seek exceptions to the policy if they had eliminated office spaces or faced challenges accommodating a full return of employees. It also allowed agency heads to approve teleworking for employees with non-standard work hours.
Attorney Richard Labarthe, who is representing Fugate pro bono, argued that Stitt’s executive action was an extension of the emergency powers granted to him during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Labarthe contended that any permanent changes to state employment policies should be handled by the Legislature, not through executive orders. “We do not have laws made by executive or gubernatorial fiat,” Labarthe said. “That is not provided for in our governing document, the state constitution.”
Governor Stitt defended his decision in his State of the State address on February 3, 2025. He praised his approach to reducing government spending and reiterated his commitment to cutting the number of state employees during his term. Stitt claimed that work-from-home policies were a temporary solution and that state employees must return to in-person work to better serve the public.
“State employees work for the taxpayer,” Stitt said. “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.”
Some lawmakers, including Republicans, have voiced concerns over the return-to-work policy. Senator Adam Pugh, a Republican from Edmond, expressed worries about the potential loss of young talent to the private sector, particularly as younger workers increasingly prioritize flexibility and remote work options. Pugh also suggested that agencies may need to request additional funding to offer higher salaries to retain employees who might otherwise seek work-from-home opportunities elsewhere.
“I think quality of life decisions, how they’re able to raise a family, how they’re able to not have to go ask their boss for an hour off so they can go to the doctor, those things are very important to a modern workforce,” Pugh said during a January 15 hearing.
The Department of Human Services (DHS), Oklahoma’s largest state agency with more than 6,300 employees, reported that only 9% of its employees were working fully on-site as of January. The rest of the workforce was split almost evenly between remote and hybrid work arrangements.
The Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) is collecting responses from state agencies regarding the implementation of the return-to-work order. A report on agency compliance and requests for exceptions is expected to be released by the end of March.
This lawsuit is not the first time Governor Stitt has faced legal challenges related to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. In the past, lawmakers have sued the governor over issues involving tribal government compacts. In 2020, 2021, and 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Legislature, asserting that Stitt did not have the unilateral power to make certain decisions related to tribal governance.
However, in January 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in favour of Governor Stitt’s right to hire his own legal counsel in disputes with tribal governments, rejecting arguments from Attorney General Gentner Drummond that the Attorney General should have sole authority to represent the state in these matters.
As the lawsuit over the return-to-work policy continues to unfold, both sides are preparing for a legal battle that could have wide-ranging implications for the future of state employment policies in Oklahoma.
Disclaimer: This article has been meticulously fact-checked by our team to ensure accuracy and uphold transparency. We strive to deliver trustworthy and dependable content to our readers.
