YOUNG v. STATION 27, INC.
2017 OK 68
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Young injured at work on January 29, 2013, sought workers’ compensation, and about 13 months later was terminated; she sued in District Court for retaliatory discharge.
- She pleaded a retaliatory discharge claim asserting violation of public policy and relied on Burk tort principles; sought jury trial and common-law damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: Station 27 argued exclusive jurisdiction lay with the Workers’ Compensation Commission under 85A O.S. § 7; Go Mart additionally asserted it was not Young’s employer.
- Trial court granted both dismissals, held § 7 provided the exclusive administrative remedy and did not violate the state constitutional jury right; Go Mart’s employer-status dismissal was also adopted.
- Oklahoma Supreme Court recast the matter as an appeal and retained it; Court examined whether Young’s claim is governed by the retaliation statute in effect at the time of injury (85 O.S. § 341) or by 85A O.S. § 7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 85A § 7 bar District Court retaliatory discharge claims for injuries occurring before § 7's effective date? | Young: § 7 does not apply because her injury predated § 7 (Jan. 29, 2013). | Station 27: § 7 is the exclusive remedy regardless of when the suit was filed. | Held: § 7 does not apply to Young’s claim; the date of injury controls and § 341 governs. |
| Is Young’s claim a Burk common-law tort or a statutory retaliation claim? | Young: May invoke Burk (public policy) and seek jury trial/common-law damages. | Defendants: The statutory scheme supplants Burk; retaliation claims must proceed under administrative statute. | Held: Claim is statutory under 85 O.S. § 341 (statutory tort); Burk is not an available alternative. |
| Did trial court err in dismissing Station 27 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction? | Young: District Court retains jurisdiction under § 341 for injuries before Feb. 1, 2014. | Station 27: Commission has exclusive jurisdiction under § 7. | Held: Dismissal as to Station 27 reversed; District Court must proceed under § 341. |
| Was dismissal of Go Mart proper for not being the employer? | Young: Challenged Go Mart’s factual showing. | Go Mart: Submitted affidavit/exhibit showing it was not Young’s employer. | Held: Affirmed — Go Mart was not Young’s employer and dismissal was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989) (establishes public-policy exception to employment-at-will)
- Ingram v. Oneok, Inc., 775 P.2d 810 (Okla. 1989) (characterizes retaliatory-discharge statutes as statutory causes of action)
- Gunn v. Consolidated Rural Water & Sewer Dist. No. 1, 839 P.2d 1345 (Okla. 1992) (recognizes §§ 5–7 retaliatory discharge as a statutory tort)
- Vasek v. Board of County Comm’rs of Noble County, 186 P.3d 928 (Okla. 2008) (sets elements and adequacy test for Burk claim)
- Shephard v. CompSource Oklahoma, 209 P.3d 288 (Okla. 2009) (discusses adequacy-of-statutory-remedy analysis for public-policy torts)