Odom v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 704 F. App'x 780

Plaintiff Perry Odom, an employee of Penske Logistics, was injured when a trailer owned by Penske Truck Leasing fell on him; Odom filed for workers’ compensation and separately sued Penske Truck Leasing (the sole stockholder of Penske Logistics) in federal court for tortious negligence.
Penske Truck Leasing moved to dismiss, arguing the Oklahoma Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA), Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(A), bars tort suits against employers’ stockholders even where the alleged tort duties are independent of the employment relationship.
The federal district court granted dismissal, finding Penske Truck Leasing was the sole stockholder and that the AWCA’s exclusive-remedy provision applied.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the AWCA abrogates the dual-capacity doctrine with respect to stockholders—i.e., whether stockholders can be sued in tort for duties independent of the employer/employee relationship.
The Tenth Circuit found the statutory text ambiguous on whether the exclusive-remedy clause reaches stockholders when tort liability arises from a non-employer capacity and concluded Oklahoma law is unsettled on this specific question.
Because the question is one of first impression under Oklahoma law and dispositive of the appeal, the Tenth Circuit certified the question to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma and abated the appeal pending that court’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does AWCA §5(A) bar tort suits against an employer’s stockholder even when the alleged tort arises from duties independent of the employment relationship (i.e., does AWCA abrogate the dual-capacity doctrine as to stockholders)?	Odom: The dual-capacity doctrine permits tort suits against parties who owe duties independent of the employment relationship; AWCA should not bar suits against stockholders for non-employer capacities.	Penske: §5(A)’s exclusive-remedy language sweeps broadly to bar suits against employers’ stockholders for injuries covered by the Act, regardless of the stockholder’s separate capacity.	The Tenth Circuit found the statute ambiguous as to stockholders, identified no controlling Oklahoma precedent, and certified the question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court; the federal appeal was abated.

Shadid v. K 9 Univ., LLC, 402 P.3d 698 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017) (Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals held AWCA abrogated the dual-capacity doctrine as to employers)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002) (discusses interpretive canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius)
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (explains expressio unius interpretive principle)