404 P.3d 829
Okla.2017Background
- Kim Young injured at work on January 29, 2013, sought workers' compensation benefits, and was terminated about 13 months later.
- Young sued in District Court alleging retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy and sought a Burk common-law tort (jury trial in District Court).
- Defendants moved to dismiss: one argued exclusive remedy was before the Workers' Compensation Commission under 85A O.S. § 7; the other argued it was not Young's employer.
- The district court granted both dismissals, holding § 7 provided the exclusive remedy and did not violate the constitutional right to jury trial; Young appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court recast the proceeding as an appeal, assumed § 7 constitutional for some questions, and analyzed which statutory framework governed Young’s retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statutory regime governs Young’s retaliation claim? | Young: injury predated 85A § 7 (effective Feb 1, 2014); therefore former 85 O.S. § 341 governs. | Defendants: § 7 (85A) applies and displaces District Court claims. | Held: § 341 (85 O.S. 2011) governs because Young’s injury date controls; § 7 does not apply to her claim. |
| Does 85A O.S. § 7 bar Young’s District Court suit or render § 341 unavailable? | Young: § 7 cannot retroactively strip her § 341 remedy. | Defendants/AG: § 7's exclusivity and § 7(G) (no exception to at-will) mean administrative exclusivity and no District Court remedy. | Held: § 7 references claims "under this act" (Title 85A) and does not apply to injuries governed by Title 85; § 341 remains available for pre-2014 injuries. |
| Is Young’s claim a Burk common-law tort or a statutory § 341 action? | Young: asserted Burk tort to obtain jury trial and common-law damages. | Defendants: statutory scheme provides the remedy; Burk is displaced. | Held: Young’s claim is a statutory retaliatory-discharge action under § 341, not a Burk tort; Burk is unavailable where an adequate statutory remedy exists. |
| Was dismissal of Go Mart proper because it was not her employer? | Young: did not contest Go Mart’s evidence below. | Go Mart: presented affidavit and documents that it was not Young’s employer. | Held: Affirmed dismissal of Go Mart — plaintiff failed to oppose employer-status showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989) (recognized public-policy wrongful discharge tort)
- Ingram v. Oneok, Inc., 775 P.2d 810 (Okla. 1989) (statutory retaliatory-discharge action created by statute)
- Vasek v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Noble County, 186 P.3d 928 (Okla. 2008) (elements and adequacy test for Burk claims)
- Shephard v. CompSource Oklahoma, 209 P.3d 288 (Okla. 2009) (discussing adequacy of statutory remedies and Burk displacement)
- Groce v. Foster, 880 P.2d 902 (Okla. 1994) (permitting Burk claims in limited circumstances when statutory remedies implicated)