January 5, 2026 | GableGotwals is pleased to announce that one associate and four Of Counsel have been promoted to Shareholder. Effective January 1, 2026, Brian Blackstock, Gerard D’Emilio, Zoe Butts Dowdell, Alex Telarik, and Brian Tully serve as Shareholders. In addition, David Herber has been promoted to Of Counsel.

“I would like to congratulate each of these attorneys on this well-deserved promotion,” said John Dale, CEO of GableGotwals. “They have consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to excellent client service and the values that define GableGotwals. Their leadership, experience, and dedication will continue to strengthen our Firm.”

Shareholders:

Brian Blackstock focuses his practice on defending corporate and individual clients in a variety of civil litigation matters in state and federal courts. He represents healthcare professionals during investigations and disciplinary proceedings before state licensure boards and regulatory agencies. He regularly counsels healthcare systems and insurance companies on an array of complex issues, including risk, compliance, and coverage. Brian also assists healthcare clients in negotiating and litigating employment, recruiting, and service contracts, as well as entity formation and reorganization.

Gerard D’Emilio focuses his practice on a wide range of litigation and appellate matters. Before joining GableGotwals as an attorney, he served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Jerome Holmes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the Honorable David L. Russell of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. He also served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Robert E. Bacharach of the Tenth Circuit. Gerard has been recognized by Best Lawyers as part of its Ones to Watch list for Appellate Practice and Commercial Litigation and as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers for General Litigation.

Zoe Butts Dowdell represents clients in a variety of general healthcare matters. With a strong background in healthcare litigation, she works closely with clients through the litigation process. Her practice includes matters in both state and federal courts, including handling litigation matters from the date of filing through trial and appellate matters. Zoe currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Oklahoma County Bar Association and is a member of the William J. Holloway Inn of Court. She has been recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers for Business Litigation and named to 405 Magazine’s Top Lawyers list for Medical Malpractice Defense.

Alex Telarik advises clients across the economic spectrum, with a particular focus on Oklahoma’s oil and gas industry. His clients range from Fortune 500 companies to small businesses and individuals. His practice includes complex disputes involving environmental and remediation issues, royalty and title matters, the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act, shareholder and partnership disputes, trade secret misappropriation, and other business litigation matters. Alex has been recognized by Best Lawyers as part of its Ones to Watch list for Oil and Gas Law and Commercial Litigation, and as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers for Business Litigation. He currently serves on the Tulsa Resource Board for Big Brothers Big Sisters of Oklahoma.

Brian Tully has more than 20 years of experience in business litigation and appellate matters, representing clients in state and federal courts across a broad range of disputes, including breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, negligence, professional negligence, and fraud. He has authored and contributed to multiple legal publications on energy, accounting, and commercial law topics and has successfully represented energy companies in significant trial and appellate matters, including securing favorable rulings and key appellate victories in complex insurance and oilfield disputes. Brian previously served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Nathan L. Hecht of the Supreme Court of Texas.

Of Counsel:

David Herber focuses his practice on administrative and regulatory law, energy and environmental law, bankruptcy, insurance, and various other commercial disputes. Prior to joining the Firm, David served as Deputy General Counsel in the Executive Office of Governor J. Kevin Stitt, where he advised the Governor and his Office on various issues related to administrative law, state ethics rules, elections, and criminal law. He also served as a Judicial Extern to Chief Judge Joe Heaton in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and as a Summer Law Clerk in the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma.

About GableGotwals

GableGotwals® is a full-service law firm with more than 100 attorneys and 70 other business professionals in Oklahoma and Texas. We represent a diversified client base across the nation, and our connections and reach are global. Fortune 500 corporations, privately owned companies, entrepreneurs, foundations, and individuals entrust us every day with the stewardship and strategic management of their legal challenges.

June 9, 2025 | By:  Scott Kiplinger and Gerard D’Emilio

As occurs often in America’s courts, employers move for summary judgment on employees’ discrimination claims. The analytical road for most of these motions is familiar:

1. the employees need to show they were terminated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination based on a protected characteristic,
2. the employers need to produce a non-discriminatory reason for the terminations, and
3. the employees must proffer evidence exposing that rationale as a sham.

But for certain employees in certain courts, including the Tenth Circuit, the first hurdle was higher. That is, “majority group” employees – like white, male, or straight workers – not only needed to raise a discriminatory inference, but also demonstrate “background circumstances” suggesting they worked for the unusual employers who discriminated against the majority. Thus, members of majority groups aiming to bring wrongful termination suits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bore a heavier burden than their minority-group counterparts.

That ended last week. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Jackson, the United States Supreme Court held that the threshold burden for surviving summary judgment is the same for all plaintiffs, irrespective of group membership. Majority group plaintiffs, then, are no longer required to show additional “background circumstances” to bring Title VII employment discrimination claims.

The case – Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services – involved a straight woman (Marlean Ames) who worked for Ohio’s Department of Youth Services for 15 years, eventually rising from assistant to program administrator. But in 2019, the Department denied her a promotion, hiring instead a gay candidate, and demoted her to a previous position with half the pay, replacing her with another gay candidate. Ames sued, alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (a form of sex discrimination). At the district and appellate levels, her employer won summary judgment based on Ames’ failure to show “background circumstances” suggesting the Department discriminates against straight workers.

The Supreme Court reversed, striking heightened evidentiary standards for majority member groups, like the “background circumstances” standard at issue. The Court explained that Title VII prohibits discrimination against all employees on the basis of certain characteristics – with no distinction as to whether they are members of a minority or majority group. Imposing a heightened evidentiary standard on majority employees contravened Title VII’s focus on the individual, not the group.

Looking Toward the Future

Before Ames, the Tenth Circuit, which includes Oklahoma, was one of a number of federal appellate courts to impose this “background circumstances” standard on majority member plaintiffs. These courts reasoned use of the standard was appropriate because employers typically discriminated against minority or historically disadvantaged employees, and not majority or historically privileged employees. After Ames, this standard is no longer an impediment: any plaintiff who can offer facts raising an inference of discrimination based on a protected characteristic, like sex, can unlock the courthouse doors and force an employer to explain the legitimate, business reasons for its actions.

Employers should prepare for increased litigation in the wake of Ames. Beyond lowering the barriers to suit, the Court said, in one voice, the rationale animating the “background circumstances” standard doesn’t change Title VII’s plain text and its protection of the individual, rather than the group. If an employer has hiring (or any other) practices that either explicitly or implicitly consider whether employees or applicants belong to minority or historically marginalized groups, those practices may be challenged by majority employees. Employers should review internal policies and practices accordingly – and, as necessary, seek legal counsel for instituting best practices.

In addition to internal hiring practices, employers should anticipate claims of discrimination with respect to disciplinary and termination decisions. Now is the time for employers to ensure they have policies and practices in place to document their legitimate business reasons for any adverse employment decisions. Further, employers should train supervisors and managers to understand and appropriately implement those policies and practices to avoid claims of discrimination.

The Alert was prepared in collaboration with the Employment & Labor Law Group in a continuing effort to keep our clients informed of the transitions of law within the areas they operate. For questions regarding this development, or any other employment and labor questions, please contact your GableGotwals attorney or a member of our Employment & Labor Law Group.

Scott Kiplinger
405-568-3317
skiplinger@gablelaw.com

Gerard D’Emilio
405-568-3318
gdemilio@gablelaw.com

This alert is provided as a summary for information purposes. It does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. It is not intended or written to be used and may not be used by any person to avoid penalties imposed under Oklahoma laws. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any stated information should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

June 3, 2025 | Congratulations to the GableGotwals attorneys recently recognized in the 2025 Top Attorneys guide by 405 Magazine. This marks the Firm’s sixth consecutive year to appear in the review.

The local guide to attorneys and practices was developed through extensive peer-review surveys conducted by DataJoe Research. This year, 20 GableGotwals attorneys were highlighted in 13 practice areas:

Appellate Law

Gerard M. D’Emilio

Business Law

J. Blake Patton

Civil Law Litigation

Amy M. Stipe

Commercial Litigation

John M. “Jake” Krattiger
Nick V. Merkley

Eminent Domain

Scott Kiplinger

Energy, Oil and Gas

Brooks A. Richardson
Rob F. Robertson

Government and Administrative

David R. Herber
Robert G. McCampbell

Insurance

Lance Leffel
Ashlyn M. Smith
Leasa M. Stewart

Labor and Employment

Ellen A. Adams

Land Use Environment

Tim Sowecke

Medical Malpractice Defense

Brian Blackstock
Zoe Butts Dowdell

Oil and Gas

Talitha Ebrite
Leo J. Portman

Product Liability

Jeffrey A. Curran

GableGotwals’ profile is featured in the June 2025 issue of 405 Magazine, beginning on page 67. The article is also available online.

May 12, 2025 | By: Tim Sowecke and Gerard D’Emilio

On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum titled Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations, instructing federal agencies to roll back existing regulations the administration deems inconsistent with recent Supreme Court decisions. The memo aligns with Executive Order 14219 (February 19, 2025), which established a 60-day review period for identifying “potentially unlawful regulations.”

An important aspect of the memo is its directive that agencies invoke the “good cause” exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to bypass the typical notice-and-comment procedures when repealing regulations. The memo cites 10 Supreme Court decisions as justification for its deregulatory initiative – five of which have environmental implications: Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), Ohio v. EPA (2024), Sackett v. EPA (2023), and West Virginia v. EPA (2022). It asserts that retaining regulations invalidated or undermined by these rulings would be “contrary to the public interest” and “unnecessary,” threshold findings for invoking the “good cause” exception. By the administration’s logic, agencies may immediately repeal rules without public input if doing so merely implements binding judicial decisions.

While this move is framed as restoring lawful regulation and constitutional boundaries, it raises significant concerns. The scope and application of the good cause exception are notoriously uncertain and fact-intensive, and using the “good cause” exception in this deregulatory context is a legal gray area that remains largely unsettled. Courts have generally construed the exception narrowly, warning against its use as a shortcut around democratic accountability. Applying it broadly to repeal a wide swath of regulations could invite legal challenges and risk overreach, especially where the connection between the regulation and the cited Supreme Court precedent is debatable. And if aggressively pursued, it may set a precedent for future administrations to bypass notice-and-comment procedures not just to implement, but to undo regulatory policy – effectively undermining procedural safeguards embedded in the APA.

This is an administrative law gamble by the Trump administration. This maneuver signals a potentially far-reaching deregulatory strategy under the guise of legal compliance; however, it hinges on a controversial interpretation of the APA’s good cause exception. The law is unsettled, and the potential for abuse is high. It is likely these moves will result in litigation and cause regulatory uncertainty while court challenges play out. This development warrants close monitoring and serves as another reminder for stakeholders to consider engaging with agencies to review specific regulations.

GableGotwals’ Administrative and Regulatory Law, Energy, Oil & Gas, and Environmental and Natural Resources Law practice groups partner with clients to anticipate regulatory shifts, evaluate compliance, engage with agencies, and participate in regulatory rulemaking. Feel free to reach out with any questions.

Tim Sowecke
405-568-3308
tsowecke@gablelaw.com

Gerard D’Emilio
405-568-3318
gdemilio@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

GableGotwals represents Jet Commercial Construction, LLC and its owners, Steve Rich and Jake Sharp, in a negligent-misrepresentation and breach-of-contract dispute arising from the construction of a fountain at Ceasars Place in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Firm’s litigation team moved to dismiss the individual claims due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and issued subsequent adverse rulings against the individual owners on discovery issues. The litigation team filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the Nevada Supreme Court, which the Court ultimately granted and directed the trial court to dismiss Rich and Sharp.