HO v. TULSA SPINE & SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, 2021 OK 68

Kristie Ho, a nurse employed since 2012, alleges she was a good at‑will employee and received a positive review in February 2020.
Governor Stitt declared a COVID‑19 state of emergency; his April 1 (seventh amended) executive order postponed elective surgeries from March 24, 2020 until April 30, 2020.
Ho contends Tulsa Spine & Specialty Hospital performed elective surgeries during that period, lacked adequate PPE, and required her to work; she reported coworker COVID‑19 hospitalization and refused to work on April 13, 2020, requesting furlough.
HR warned her that failing to return would be treated as a resignation; the hospital terminated Ho on April 27, 2020.
Ho sued for wrongful discharge under the Burk public‑policy exception to at‑will employment; the trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding the Governor’s temporary emergency orders (March 24–April 30, 2020) expressed state public policy to curtail infectious disease and thus could support a Burk claim; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Governor's temporary COVID‑19 executive orders constitute a "clear and compelling" Oklahoma public policy under Burk to support a wrongful‑discharge tort	Ho: The orders were legislatively authorized emergency public‑health directives and thus express state public policy protecting employees who refuse unsafe work	Hospital: Executive orders are temporary and not the type of well‑defined, firmly established statutory/jurisprudential public policy required by Burk	Yes — because the Legislature expressly authorized emergency orders and the orders aimed to curtail infectious disease, the Burk exception applied for the period March 24–April 30, 2020
Whether dismissal under Rule for failure to state a claim was appropriate	Ho: Allegations must be taken as true; she pleaded actual/constructive discharge for conduct consistent with the emergency order/public policy	Hospital: Pleadings did not allege violation of a clearly established public policy	No — at pleading stage Ho’s allegations and reasonable inferences could support a Burk claim; dismissal was premature

Burk v. K‑Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989) (adopted narrow public‑policy exception to at‑will employment; created Burk tort)
Tate v. Browning‑Ferris, 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992) (applied Burk to discrimination contexts)
Clinton v. State ex rel. Logan Cty. Election Bd., 29 P.3d 543 (Okla. 2001) (clarified Burk elements and limits)
Vasek v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 186 P.3d 928 (Okla. 2008) (summarized Burk elements; wrongful discharge for reporting law violations)
Moore v. Warr Acres Nursing Ctr., 376 P.3d 894 (Okla. 2016) (recognized public‑health regulations as clear public policy supporting Burk claim)
Silver v. CPC‑Sherwood Manor, Inc., 84 P.3d 728 (Okla. 2004) (held infection‑control statutes/regulations can support Burk claim)
Treat v. Stitt, 473 P.3d 43 (Okla. 2020) (explained legislative role in setting public policy and limits on gubernatorial authority)