VASQUEZ v. DILLARD'S, INC.
381 P.3d 768
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Employee Olga Vasquez (Dillard’s) injured her neck/shoulder on Sept. 11, 2014 and filed benefits claims under Dillard’s "opt‑out" employee benefit plan; employer denied claims and Vasquez appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Commission.
- Dillard’s sought removal to federal court under ERISA; federal court remanded to the Commission as a workers’ compensation action.
- The Commission ruled the Oklahoma Employee Injury Benefit Act (OEIBA or "Opt Out Act") unconstitutional as a special law, denying equal protection and access to courts; Dillard’s appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court under the statute’s expedited-review directive.
- The Supreme Court (majority) held the core provision of the Opt Out Act (85A O.S. Supp. 2015 §203) creates impermissible disparate treatment of injured workers and is an unconstitutional special law under Okla. Const. art. 5, §59.
- The Court remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and applied the decision prospectively and to pending similar cases; concurring and dissenting opinions debated ERISA preemption, severability, and scope of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vasquez) | Defendant's Argument (Dillard's) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has authority to decide constitutional challenges to the OEIBA | Legislature mandated Supreme Court retain and expedite appeals; Robinson requires supreme-court review of justiciable constitutional challenges | Court lacks jurisdiction; matters governed by ERISA or Commission determinations | Court has authority; statute directs review and Robinson controls — issues properly before the Court |
| Whether the OEIBA is a "special law" in violation of Okla. Const. art. 5, §59 | Opt Out Act singles out injured employees for unequal treatment and conflicts with the general AWCA; class is injured employees; a general law (AWCA) applies | Class is employers, not employees; Act provides baseline core benefits so no disparate treatment | OEIBA is a special law: class is injured employees; AWCA is the general law; Act impermissibly creates disparate treatment (statute unconstitutional) |
| Whether challenged provision (§203) can be severed or re‑read to save the Act | §203 is central; selective severance or re‑reading cannot cure the constitutional defect because it would nullify the Act’s purpose | Court should sever exclusive‑remedy clause or read §203 to require parity with AWCA to save remainder | Severance or judicial re-writing would frustrate legislative purpose; entire OEIBA is invalidated (statutory severability insufficient to save core scheme) |
| Whether ERISA preempts the OEIBA and deprives state courts/Commission of jurisdiction | OEIBA plans are maintained solely to comply with state workers’ compensation; ERISA exemption for workers’ compensation plans applies | Dillard’s: its plan is an ERISA-covered welfare plan (includes non‑occupational benefits), so OEIBA is preempted and federal jurisdiction controls | Majority: addressed special‑law issue and did not find preemption dispositive; concurrence analyzes ERISA and concludes OEIBA falls within state workers’ compensation exemption (i.e., not preempted) but the Court’s holding does not rest on ERISA analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Fairview Fellowship Home for Senior Citizens, Inc., 371 P.3d 477 (Okla. 2016) (Supreme Court duty to review constitutionality of challenged enactments presented by a justiciable controversy)
- Reynolds v. Porter, 760 P.2d 816 (Okla. 1988) (three‑part test for special vs. general laws under art. 5, §59)
- Maxwell v. Sprint PCS, 369 P.3d 1079 (Okla. 2016) (Legislature cannot vary effect of award to exclude one beneficiary group without distinctive characteristic)
- Grant v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 5 P.3d 694 (Okla. 2000) (permissible special law requires a distinctive characteristic furnishing a practical basis for discrimination)
- Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc., 152 P.3d 861 (Okla. 2006) (analysis of art. 5, §46/§59 limits on special/local laws and requirement of uniform procedural schemes)
- Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, 373 P.3d 1057 (Okla. 2016) (class-of-employees analysis; refusal to create distinctions among similarly injured employees)
- Fair School Finance Council v. State, 746 P.2d 1135 (Okla. 1987) (constitutional standards and presumptions favoring validity of statutes)