Enid, OK – A new lawsuit filed by Representative Andy Fugate (D-Del City) is challenging Governor Kevin Stitt’s executive order, which mandates state workers return to the office, ending their remote work arrangements. Fugate argues that the governor’s actions overstep his constitutional authority and violate the separation of powers.
The lawsuit, filed in response to the governor’s December 2024 executive order, seeks a preliminary injunction to block the order. It claims that the power to make such decisions lies with the Oklahoma Legislature, not the executive branch. The order required state employees to report back to physical offices by February 2, 2025, after the remote work policies, which were put in place during the pandemic, had been in effect for nearly three years.
Fugate, who represents Del City, criticized the executive action, calling it a form of “overreach” and suggesting that Stitt was “acting like a king.” He further argued that the order is not only a misuse of power but also carries significant costs, both financially and in terms of human resources.
“The governor’s executive order has a direct cost to taxpayers,” Fugate said. “It has a direct cost to human capital. And it is an erosion of the separation of powers established in our constitution.”
A report from Oklahoma Department of Health Commissioner Keith Lee, presented in January, indicated that bringing workers back to physical offices would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Additionally, the department is exploring potential federal funding to offset the financial burden.
The lawsuit highlights the impact of the order on the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS), where nearly 44% of employees worked remotely in fiscal year 2024. DHS, which employs over 6,200 individuals, had implemented remote and hybrid work arrangements during the pandemic, with employees working either fully remotely or in a combination of both remote and in-office settings.
According to Fugate, nearly 30% of employees within the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) worked fully remotely in fiscal year 2024, while an additional 60% followed a hybrid work schedule. The new executive order, which curtails these flexible arrangements, is expected to disrupt these work practices.
In response to inquiries about the fiscal impact of the order and the number of employees affected, OMES stated that they have until March 31 to gather comprehensive data from across the state and provide a full response.
As the case proceeds, all eyes will be on whether the courts agree with Fugate’s assertion that the executive order is unconstitutional or if it will stand as a legitimate exercise of executive power in the state.
