 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton v. State ex rel Logan County Election Board6/26/2001
As amended July 3, 2001
__ P.3d __
Plaintiff alleged her employer discharged her because she was pregnant. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified a question of unsettled state law concerning the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED
Pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 1991, §§ 1601 et seq., the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, certified the following question:
In light of Collier v. Insignia Financial Group, 1999 OK 49, 981 P.2d 321, is a gender status-based discrimination claim, such as one's status as a pregnant female, actionable under a Burk public policy tort theory?
I. COURT'S FUNCTION WHEN RESPONDING TO A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM A FEDERAL COURT
Since the case is not before us for decision we refrain from applying our answer to the certified question to the facts of the case. We also refrain from passing upon the effect of federal procedure on the issues, facts and proof in the case. We briefly outline the parties' contentions, provided to us by the certifying court, to place the certified question in perspective.
Logan County Election Board (Board) employed plaintiff, Clinton, from September of 1997 through August 18, 1998, when the Board fired her. Defendants contend they fired Clinton because of her dishonesty, her unsatisfactory work performance and her general work attitude. Clinton contends the Board fired her because she was pregnant. The certifying court advised us that Clinton sued defendants for pregnancy discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), and that Clinton has sought leave to amend her complaint to add a supplemental claim of "tortious violation of public policy against gender discrimination, as set forth in the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act," 25 O.S. §§ 1101 et seq. (OADA).
Inherent in the certifying court's question and statement of the case are the implications that plaintiff's employment is terminable-at-will, that firing an at-will employee because she is pregnant violates Oklahoma's public policy and that plaintiff has an adequate statutory remedy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), 2000e-2(a)(1), for her alleged wrongful discharge. Accordingly, we rephrase the question as follows:
When an employer discharges a terminable-at-will employee based on the employee's status and the reason for the discharge violates Oklahoma's clear and compelling public policy, but the employee has an adequate federal statutory remedy for the wrongful discharge, may that employee also bring a tort claim under Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22, 770 P.2d 24, for wrongful discharge in violation of Oklahoma's public policy?
We answer the question in the negative.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Public policy exception to at-will-employment doctrine
The doctrine of employment-at-will is firmly embedded in the common law of Oklahoma. Collier v. Insignia Financial Group, 1990 OK 49, 981 P.2d 321, 323. Under this doctrine, an employee with an employment contract of indefinite duration is at liberty to leave his or her employment for any reason or no reason without incurring liability to the employer. Singh v. Cities Service Oil Co., 1976 OK 123, 554 P.2d 1367, 1369. Notions of fundamental fairness underlie the concept of mutuality which extends a corresponding freedom to the employer. Id. Thus, under the employment-at-will doctrine an employer is also at liberty to fire an at-will employ
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|