YOUNG v. STATION 27, INC.
2017 OK 68
Okla.2017Background
- Young was injured at work on January 29, 2013, sought workers’ compensation, and was terminated about 13 months later; she sued in District Court claiming retaliatory discharge.
- Plaintiff pleaded a statutory retaliatory-discharge claim and alternatively relied on Burk (common-law public-policy tort) and alleged 85A O.S. § 7 (eff. Feb. 1, 2014) deprived her of a jury trial and common-law damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: Station 27 argued the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction under 85A § 7; Go Mart argued it was not Young’s employer.
- The District Court dismissed both defendants and upheld the constitutionality of 85A § 7; Young sought extraordinary relief, which the Oklahoma Supreme Court treated as an appeal and retained.
- The Supreme Court held Young’s retaliatory-discharge claim is governed by the statute in effect on the date of injury (85 O.S.2011 § 341), concluded 85A § 7 did not apply to bar her § 341 District Court action, affirmed dismissal of Go Mart for not being her employer, and ruled a Burk tort is not available where § 341 provides an adequate statutory remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 85A O.S. § 7 (eff. Feb 1, 2014) bar Young’s District Court retaliatory-discharge claim? | § 7 is unconstitutional or inapplicable because Young’s injury predated § 7; her claim can proceed in District Court. | § 7 gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Commission and precludes District Court claims, so dismissal is required. | Held: § 7 does not apply to Young’s claim because her injury occurred Jan. 29, 2013; her claim is governed by 85 O.S.2011 § 341. |
| Is Young entitled to a jury trial and common-law damages (Art. 2 § 19 challenge)? | § 7 (and administrative adjudication) unlawfully denies jury trial and common-law remedies. | § 7 is constitutional and does not violate the right to jury trial. | Held: Court did not need to resolve § 7’s constitutionality; because § 7 is inapplicable, Young’s § 341 claim remains in District Court; jury-trial argument not decided here. |
| Was Go Mart Young’s employer such that it could be liable? | Young alleged both Station 27 and Go Mart; Go Mart was a proper defendant. | Go Mart submitted affidavit and documents showing it was a separate corporation and Young did not work for it. | Held: Dismissal of Go Mart affirmed — plaintiff failed to dispute employer status in trial court. |
| Is a Burk public‑policy tort available as an alternative to § 341? | Burk remains an available common-law remedy for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. | The statutory remedy (§ 341) is adequate and exclusive for retaliation tied to workers’ compensation, barring Burk. | Held: Burk is not available here; § 341 (statutory damages and reinstatement) is an adequate statutory remedy and governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burk v. K‑Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989) (recognition of narrow public‑policy tort for wrongful discharge)
- Ingram v. ONEOK, Inc., 775 P.2d 810 (Okla. 1989) (statutory retaliatory‑discharge actions are causes of action created by statute)
- Vasek v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Noble Cnty., 186 P.3d 928 (Okla. 2008) (elements and adequacy test for Burk claims)
- Gunn v. Consolidated Rural Water & Sewer Dist. No. 1, 839 P.2d 1345 (Okla. 1992) (characterizing retaliatory‑discharge under statutes as a statutory tort)