public policy exception in Oklahoma

2025See 25 O.S.Supp.1968, § 1101 Burk v. K-Mart Corp. , this Court carved out a narrow public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, permitting tort recovery where an employee termination contravenes a clear mandate of public policy derived from constitutional, statutory, or decisional law. 1989 OK 22 770 P.2d 24 Burk tort to encompass terminations violating the OADA.

2025See 25 O.S.Supp.1968, § 1101 Burk v. K-Mart Corp. , this Court carved out a narrow public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, permitting tort recovery where an employee termination contravenes a clear mandate of public policy derived from constitutional, statutory, or decisional law. 1989 OK 22 770 P.2d 24 Burk tort to encompass terminations violating the OADA.

1989The public policy exception to the employment-at-will rule seeks to maintain a proper balance "among the employer's interest in operating a business efficiently and profitably, the employee's interest in earning a livelihood, and society's interest in seeing its public policies carried out." Id. (quoting Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 129 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 , 15, 421 N.E.2d 876, 878 (1981).

1989The public policy exception to the employment-at-will rule seeks to maintain a proper balance “among the employer’s interest in operating a business efficiently and profitably, the employee’s interest in earning a livelihood, and society’s interest in seeing its public policies carried out.” Id. (quoting Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 I11.2d 124,129, 52 IlLDec. 13, 15, 421 N.E.2d 876, 878 (1981).

2014Comments This Instruction is based on the public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine that was recognized in Vannerson v. Board of Regents of the Univ of Oklahoma , 1989 OK 125, 784 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1989) ; Burk v. K-Mart Corp. , 1989 OK 22, ¶¶ 17-20, 770 P.2d 24, 28-29 (Okla. 1989) ; and Hinson v. Cameron , 1987 OK 49, ¶ 10, 742 P.2d 549, 552-53 (Okla. 1987) .

2014Comments This Instruction is based on the public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine that was recognized in Vannerson v. Board of Regents of the Univ of Oklahoma , 1989 OK 125, 784 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1989) ; Burk v. K-Mart Corp. , 1989 OK 22, ¶¶ 17-20, 770 P.2d 24, 28-29 (Okla. 1989) ; and Hinson v. Cameron , 1987 OK 49, ¶ 10, 742 P.2d 549, 552-53 (Okla. 1987) .

2014Ass'n of Butler , 1992 OK 11, ¶¶ 13-15, 825 P.2d 1323, 1326 -27 (Okla. 1992) , that the public policy exception applied to the discharge of an at will employee, who was also a city mayor, in retaliation for his voting to deny his employer's request for a zoning variance.

2014Ass'n of Butler , 1992 OK 11, ¶¶ 13-15, 825 P.2d 1323, 1326 -27 (Okla. 1992) , that the public policy exception applied to the discharge of an at will employee, who was also a city mayor, in retaliation for his voting to deny his employer's request for a zoning variance.

2014For an Instruction where the plaintiffs claim is that the discharge was in retaliation for plaintiffs performing an act consistent with a clear and compelling public policy, see Instruction No. 21.3, supra. Comments In Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc. , 1992 OK 72 , ¶ 10, 833 P.2d 1218, 1225, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the public policy exception was applicable to a racially motivated discharge or one in retaliation for an employee's filing a racial discrimination complaint.

2014Comments The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc . , 1992 OK 72 , ¶ 10, 833 P.2d 1218, 1225, that the public policy exception was applicable to a racially motivated discharge.

2014Later, in Kruchowski v. The Weyerhauser Co. , 2008 OK 105, ¶ 23, 202 P.3d 144, and Shirazi v. Childtime Learning Center , 2009 OK 13, ¶ 12, 204 P.3d 75, the Supreme Court decided that the public policy exception also applied to victims of unlawful discrimination, because victims of all forms of employment discrimination, including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age and handicap, must receive evenhanded treatment under art. 5, § 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

2014Later, in Kruchowski v. The Weyerhauser Co. , 2008 OK 105, ¶ 23, 202 P.3d 144, and Shirazi v. Childtime Learning Center , 2009 OK 13, ¶ 12, 204 P.3d 75, the Supreme Court decided that the public policy exception also applied to victims of unlawful discrimination, because victims of all forms of employment discrimination, including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age and handicap, must receive evenhanded treatment under art. 5, § 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

2005Co., 1996 OK 1 , 910 P.2d 1011, 1013 ; Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 1995 OK 108 , 905 P.2d 778, 785 . ¶ 8 In Clinton , we explained that the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine rests on the notion that in a civilized society the rights of employers to discharge at-will employees must necessarily be balanced against the rights of the public at large as expressed in the existing law.

2005Co., 1996 OK 1 , 910 P.2d 1011, 1013 ; Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 1995 OK 108 , 905 P.2d 778, 785 . ¶ 8 In Clinton , we explained that the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine rests on the notion that in a civilized society the rights of employers to discharge at-will employees must necessarily be balanced against the rights of the public at large as expressed in the existing law.

2014In addition, in Gilmore v. Enogex, Inc. , 1994 OK 76 , ¶¶ 14, 17, 21, 878 P.2d 360 , 368 365-68 (Okla. 1994) , the Supreme Court decided that an employee's discharge for refusal to submit to a random drug test did not come within the public policy exception.

2014In addition, in Gilmore v. Enogex, Inc. , 1994 OK 76, ¶¶ 14, 17, 21, 878 P.2d 360, 368 365-68 (Okla. 1994) , the Supreme Court decided that an employee's discharge for refusal to submit to a random drug test did not come within the public policy exception.

2014Comments This Instruction is based on the public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine that was recognized in Vannerson v. Board of Regents of the Univ of Oklahoma , 1989 OK 125, 784 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1989) ; Burk v. K-Mart Corp. , 1989 OK 22, ¶¶ 17-20, 770 P.2d 24, 28-29 (Okla. 1989) ; and Hinson v. Cameron , 1987 OK 49, ¶ 10, 742 P.2d 549, 552-53 (Okla. 1987) .

2014Comments This Instruction is based on the public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine that was recognized in Vannerson v. Board of Regents of the Univ of Oklahoma , 1989 OK 125, 784 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1989) ; Burk v. K-Mart Corp. , 1989 OK 22, ¶¶ 17-20, 770 P.2d 24, 28-29 (Okla. 1989) ; and Hinson v. Cameron , 1987 OK 49, ¶ 10, 742 P.2d 549, 552-53 (Okla. 1987) .

2014Similarly, the Supreme Court determined in Groce v. Foster , 1994 OK 88 ¶ 1, 880 P.2d 902, 903 (Okla. 1994) , that an employee's right to file a negligence action against a third party employee for on the job injuries was protected under the public policy exception.

2014Similarly, the Supreme Court determined in Groce v. Foster , 1994 OK 88 ¶ 1, 880 P.2d 902, 903 (Okla. 1994) , that an employee's right to file a negligence action against a third party employee for on the job injuries was protected under the public policy exception.

2014In contrast, in Vannerson v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Oklahoma , 1989 OK 12, ¶ 10 , 784 P.2d 1053, 1055 (Okla. 1989) , the Supreme Court held that a violation of a University of Oklahoma internal policy on maintaining accurate records did not "rise to the level of a constitutional, statutory or decisional statement of public policy of the State of Oklahoma." Accordingly, it reversed a plaintiff's judgment on a wrongful discharge claim that was based on the public policy exception.

2014In contrast, in Vannerson v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Oklahoma , 1989 OK 12, ¶ 10, 784 P.2d 1053, 1055 (Okla. 1989) , the Supreme Court held that a violation of a University of Oklahoma internal policy on maintaining accurate records did not "rise to the level of a constitutional, statutory or decisional statement of public policy of the State of Oklahoma." Accordingly, it reversed a plaintiff's judgment on a wrongful discharge claim that was based on the public policy exception.

2014See also McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. , 115 S.Ct. 879 , 885-86 513 U.S. 352, 360-61 (1995) (after-acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing is not complete bar to recovery, but it may be taken into account in determining the appropriate remedy); Mosley v. Truckstops Corp. of Am. , 1993 OK 79 , ¶ 21, 891 P.2d 577, 585 (Okla. 1993) ("A jury instruction which relieves an employer of liability for terminating an employee engaged in misconduct discovered after the employee was terminated is inopposite [sic] to Oklahoma law and giving the instruction is reversible error. ") (emphasis i

2014See also McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. , 115 S.Ct. 879, 885-86 513 U.S. 352, 360-61 (1995) (after-acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing is not complete bar to recovery, but it may be taken into account in determining the appropriate remedy); Mosley v. Truckstops Corp. of Am. , 1993 OK 79, ¶ 21, 891 P.2d 577, 585 (Okla. 1993) ("A jury instruction which relieves an employer of liability for terminating an employee engaged in misconduct discovered after the employee was terminated is inopposite [sic] to Oklahoma law and giving the instruction is reversible error. ") (emphasis in

2014See also McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. , 115 S.Ct. 879, 885-86 513 U.S. 352, 360-61 (1995) (after-acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing is not complete bar to recovery, but it may be taken into account in determining the appropriate remedy); Mosley v. Truckstops Corp. of Am. , 1993 OK 79, ¶ 21, 891 P.2d 577, 585 (Okla. 1993) ("A jury instruction which relieves an employer of liability for terminating an employee engaged in misconduct discovered after the employee was terminated is inopposite [sic] to Oklahoma law and giving the instruction is reversible error. ") (emphasis in

2014See also McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. , 115 S.Ct. 879, 885-86 513 U.S. 352, 360-61 (1995) (after-acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing is not complete bar to recovery, but it may be taken into account in determining the appropriate remedy); Mosley v. Truckstops Corp. of Am. , 1993 OK 79, ¶ 21, 891 P.2d 577, 585 (Okla. 1993) ("A jury instruction which relieves an employer of liability for terminating an employee engaged in misconduct discovered after the employee was terminated is inopposite [sic] to Oklahoma law and giving the instruction is reversible error. ") (emphasis in

2008The trial court rejected the asserted sources of an Oklahoma public policy goal "[als the Plaintiff is not covered under either statutes [and thus] there is no basis for a Burk [sic] tort." This Court's recent decision in Darrow is instructive. 122 In Darrow, this Court noted that "Oklahoma law protects both internal and external reporting of whistleblowers who rely on an employer's public-policy violation to support an actionable employment termination." 2008 OK 1, ¶ 19 , 176 P.3d at 1215 (footnote omitted).

2008The trial court rejected the asserted sources of an Oklahoma public policy goal "[als the Plaintiff is not covered under either statutes [and thus] there is no basis for a Burk [sic] tort." This Court's recent decision in Darrow is instructive. 122 In Darrow, this Court noted that "Oklahoma law protects both internal and external reporting of whistleblowers who rely on an employer's public-policy violation to support an actionable employment termination." 2008 OK 1, ¶ 19 , 176 P.3d at 1215 (footnote omitted).

2008Co., 81 Mich.App. 489, 496 , 265 N.W.2d 385, 388 (1978) (a former employee’s allegation that he was discharged for his refusal to manipulate and adjust sampling results used for pollution control reports to be filed with the state was sufficient to state a claim for relief in accordance with the public-policy exception to the at-will employment rule).

2008Co., 81 Mich.App. 489, 496 , 265 N.W.2d 385, 388 (1978) (a former employee’s allegation that he was discharged for his refusal to manipulate and adjust sampling results used for pollution control reports to be filed with the state was sufficient to state a claim for relief in accordance with the public-policy exception to the at-will employment rule).

2007See Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 1995 OK 108 , 905 P.2d 778, n. 7 (citing Brown v. MFC Finance Co., 1992 OK CIV APP 54 , 838 P.2d 524 ). 5 .

2007See Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 1995 OK 108 , 905 P.2d 778, n. 7 (citing Brown v. MFC Finance Co., 1992 OK CIV APP 54 , 838 P.2d 524 ). 5 .

2007Id. at 546 (emphasis added).