The Facts as Jackson Puts Them
Jerad Jackson's account is specific. He worked at a CareerTech education school in northwest Oklahoma. Like millions of workers, he occasionally used his employer's computer to check his personal Gmail. According to his federal civil rights complaint — filed pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma as Jackson v. Slater et al., CIV-25-841-D — the school's IT director, at the direction of the school's attorney, conducted what the IT director himself described as a "blanket search" of Jackson's personal Google account. Not a search of files on the school's computer. Not a search of his work email. A search of his personal Google account, which he had accessed through a work machine.
The attorney Jackson identifies as having directed that search is Samanthia Marshall, an attorney with Rosenstein, Fist and Ringold, a prominent Oklahoma public-entity law firm based in Tulsa. Marshall, according to Jackson's complaint, was employed by his school at the time. He says he tried to resolve the matter through non-legal channels first: letters of notice to his employer, a grievance with the Oklahoma Bar against Marshall, notice to Marshall's firm, a grievance with the Oklahoma CareerTech education board. When none of that worked, he filed suit.
He was fired before he received any hearing, any advance notice of the charges against him, or any of the evidence the school claimed supported its decision. The Supreme Court decided in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), that public employees with a property interest in their jobs are entitled to exactly those things before termination. Jackson was given none of them.
Why This Is Not Just an HR Dispute
The legal framework here is settled. The Supreme Court held in O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987), that public employees retain Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches by their employers, and that any workplace search must be reasonable both at its inception and in its scope. A search that begins without reasonable suspicion of workplace misconduct fails the first prong. A search that exceeds what is necessary to find work-related materials fails the second.
The Court revisited the issue in Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010), a case about a police officer whose department read his personal text messages on a department-issued pager. The Court assumed, without deciding, that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy — and still found the search reasonable only because it was narrowly drawn and motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose. Jackson's allegations describe the inverse: a search with no apparent work-related limitation, conducted on an account the employee owned personally, at the explicit direction of an attorney.
That last part matters. If true, this is not a case where an IT department ran a routine compliance sweep and a supervisor misread policy. Jackson alleges that an attorney — someone trained in the Fourth Amendment, someone whose job description includes advising public employers on constitutional compliance — directed the search. An attorney who "directed," in her own alleged words, a "blanket search."
The Part That Should Worry Other Public Employers
Rosenstein, Fist and Ringold is not a solo practitioner working out of a strip mall. It is one of Oklahoma's best-known public-entity law firms, representing school districts, municipalities, and government agencies across the state. If one of its attorneys directed a constitutionally defective search of an employee's personal account — and if that search then became the basis for a termination that itself violated Loudermill — the implications extend well past Jackson's case. Every public employer that has ever relied on the firm's advice about employee searches now has to ask the same question Jackson is asking: what else got searched, and who told them it was legal?
The Pro Se Problem
Jackson is representing himself. He is not an attorney. He is, by his own account and by the visible effort in his complaint, a meticulous and motivated litigant — he has named the right cases, cited the right constitutional provisions, and complied with the procedural rules that trip up most pro se plaintiffs. But he is still a pro se plaintiff going up against a major Oklahoma law firm, a public employer, and — if his complaint is to be believed — every institutional advantage those defendants can bring to bear. He says he is seeking legal representation and has not found it.
That last fact is its own story. A case against a prominent public-entity law firm, brought by a non-attorney, alleging constitutional violations by that firm's attorney, is exactly the kind of case Oklahoma's civil rights bar exists to take. The fact that Jackson has not found counsel suggests either that the local bar is unaware of the case, or that taking on Rosenstein, Fist and Ringold — and the public employers it represents — is not something Oklahoma civil rights attorneys are lining up to do.
A Note on Sources
This article is based on Jerad Jackson's submissions to The Ethics Reporter, including his description of the facts and legal claims in Jackson v. Slater et al., CIV-25-841-D (W.D. Okla.); the text of his federal complaint as he described it; and the cited Supreme Court precedents (O'Connor v. Ortega, Ontario v. Quon, Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill). The Ethics Reporter has not independently reviewed the underlying court filings, which are available through PACER. Samanthia Marshall and Rosenstein, Fist and Ringold did not respond to requests for comment.
The Ethics Reporter is an independent legal accountability publication. We rely entirely on reader donations to fund this work. If this reporting matters to you, please consider supporting us at theethicsreporter.com/donate. Even $1 keeps the lights on. Thank you.