443 P.3d 566
Okla.2019Background
- Thomas Southon was injured at work, filed a workers' compensation claim, and was fired less than a month later. He sued in Creek County District Court alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers' compensation benefits and challenged 85A O.S.Supp. 2013 § 7 as unconstitutional.
- Section 7 (85A) prohibits employer retaliation for workers' compensation activity, vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Workers' Compensation Commission, caps back-pay at $100,000, and makes the Commission remedies exclusive.
- Employer moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing section 7 makes the Commission the exclusive forum; the district court sustained the motion and upheld the statute's constitutionality.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal and considered whether section 7 violates the state constitution (jury trial right, due process, special-law prohibition) and whether a common-law Burk tort remains available.
- The Court affirmed dismissal: it held (1) no constitutional right to jury trial for this statutory retaliatory-discharge claim; (2) section 7 satisfies due-process rational-basis review; (3) the statute is not an unconstitutional special law; and (4) the statutory remedies preclude a Burk tort in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §7 denies right to jury trial (Art. II §19) | Southon: §7 removes jury forum for retaliatory-discharge claims and thus violates the inviolate jury right | Employer: Retaliatory-discharge is a statutory tort created after adoption of the Constitution and not guaranteed a jury trial; Legislature may assign forum | Court: No jury right; cause is statutory (post-constitutional) so article II §19 does not guarantee jury trial for it |
| Whether §7 violates due process (Art. II §7 & 14th Amend.) | Southon: Exclusive administrative forum and $100,000 cap are arbitrary and inadequate | Employer: §7 furthers legitimate interests (protect workers; limit employer exposure) and is rationally tailored | Court: §7 is rationally related to legitimate state interests; no due-process violation |
| Whether §7 is an unconstitutional special/local law (Art. V §46) | Southon: §7 improperly classifies workers'-compensation-based wrongful termination victims differently from other wrongful-termination victims | Employer: Classification is reasonable because it protects distinct public policy (encouraging compensation claims) and applies uniformly to that class | Court: Not a special law; classification is reasonable and embraces the relevant class |
| Whether Burk tort remains available in district court | Southon: §7's remedies are inadequate, so Burk tort should be permitted | Employer: Legislature created an adequate statutory remedy and assigned exclusive administrative jurisdiction | Court: §7 provides adequate statutory remedies; Burk tort is precluded |
Key Cases Cited
- A.E. v. State, 743 P.2d 1041 (Okla. 1987) (construing scope of constitutional jury-right expansion)
- Burk v. K–Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989) (recognizing public-policy wrongful termination tort)
- Glasco v. State ex rel. Okla. Dep't of Corr., 188 P.3d 177 (Okla. 2008) (administrative forum can preclude court tort claim for retaliatory discharge)
- MacDonald v. Corporate Integris Health, 321 P.3d 980 (Okla. 2014) (upholding distinct remedies for status-based wrongful termination)
- Graham v. D & K Oilfield Servs., 404 P.3d 863 (Okla. 2017) (upholding statutory benefit limits as rationally related to legitimate interests)
- Robinson v. Fairview Fellowship Home for Senior Citizens, 371 P.3d 477 (Okla. 2016) (Commission may exercise adjudicative authority over individual proceedings)
- Shephard v. CompSource Okla., 209 P.3d 288 (Okla. 2009) (statutory administrative remedies can adequately protect public-policy interests)
- Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, 373 P.3d 1057 (Okla. 2016) (substantive-due-process analysis and deference to legislative policy choices)