 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Prince v. St. John Medical Center6/30/1998
Decided: April 14, 1998
RELEASE FOR PUBLICATION BY ORDER OF COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
HONORABLE JEFFERSON SELLERS, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Carrie Prince worked as a nurse for St. John Medical Center (Hospital) in its newborn nursery. Hospital fired Prince for violation of Hospital's policies upon complaints received that Prince had allegedly been observed demonstrating rough care, using foul language, and exhibiting inappropriate conduct towards newborn babies. Prince denied the allegations and sued Hospital for defamation, defamation from compelled self-publication, wrongful discharge in retaliation for whistle-blowing activities, and breach of an implied contract.
Prince withdrew all of her allegations except those relating to wrongful discharge, claiming that under Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22, 770 P.2d 24, she was improperly terminated for reporting hospital violations of clearly mandated public policies. Hospital moved for summary judgment, contending Prince had not identified a clear mandate of public policy which Hospital frustrated by terminating her as required for an action under Burk v. K-Mart. Prince responded, arguing that her evidentiary material raised questions of fact concerning whether she was fired for reporting violations of two clearly mandated expressions of public policy. The trial court sustained Hospital's motion, filing a judgment denying Prince's claim, and Prince filed this appeal.
In addressing Prince's claim that summary adjudication was inappropriate, we must examine the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by the parties and affirm if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Hospital was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. All inferences and Conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Prince. Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. We are limited to the issues actually presented below, as reflected by the record which was before the trial court rather than one that could have been assembled. Frey v. Independence Fire and Casualty Company, 1985 OK 25, 698 P.2d 17. In this context, Prince argues that the trial court erred in failing to find she stated a claim for wrongful termination for whistle-blowing under Burk v. K-Mart.
In Burk v. K-Mart, the Court recognized a limited public policy exception to the general rule that, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, "an employer may discharge an employee for good cause, for no cause or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong." Burk v. K-Mart 1989 OK 22, ,770 P.2d at 26. According to Burk v. K-Mart, a discharge which was "contrary to a clear mandate of public policy as articulated by constitutional, statutory or decisional law," gave rise to an action in tort against the employer. Burk v. K-Mart, 1989 OK 22, , 770 P.2d at 28. This action for discharge could arise from termination based upon " refusing to act in violation of an established and well-defined public policy or for performing an act consistent with a clear and compelling public policy." Burk v. K-Mart, 1989 OK 22 , 770 P.2d at 29. However, in light of the vague meaning of public policy and the legislature's primary role in formulating it, Burk v. K-Mart directed the exception to be tightly circumscribed, and left the determination to the courts as a matter of law.
Thus, as a predicate to suit under Burk v. K-Mart, Prince was required to establish violation of a clearly mandated public policy. To
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|