Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1101
Purposes - Construction
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. This act provides for exclusive remedies within the state of the policies for individuals alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, creed, age, disability or genetic information. B. This act shall be construed according to the fair import of its terms to further the general purposes stated in this section and the special purposes of the particular provision involved. C. Any policy, program, or statute that prohibits sex discrimination shall be construed to forbid unfair treatment of females or males in relation to similarly situated members of the opposite sex. The state or its political subdivisions shall not be
prohibited from establishing distinctions between sexes when such distinctions are substantially related to an important government objective, including, but not limited to, biology, privacy, safety, or fairness. Added by Laws 1968, c. 388, § 101. Amended by Laws 1985, c. 165, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1985; Laws 1991, c. 177, § 1; Laws 2011, c. 270, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2011; Laws 2024, c. 365, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2024.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85
cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.
Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc. (1992)
“3 For a complete answer we must address a question expressly tendered in the parties’ briefs and fairly comprised in the plaintiff’s federal-court complaint allegations, although not explicitly posed: Are state-law remedies prescribed by Oklahoma’s anti-discrimination statute,…”
Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2009)
“5, § 46 and the provisions of the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, 25 O.S. §§ 1101, et seq. and § 1901? We noted the prior holdings which had expanded the common-law Burk tort remedy to the areas of race and sexual harassment.”
Jones v. Needham (2017)
“” Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1101 (A). The OADA is analyzed similarly to Title VII - 11 - claims.”
Duncan v. City of Nichols Hills (1996)
“The court of appeals erred in concluding that a claim filed pursuant to 25 O.S.1991, § 1101 et seq., is barred if not brought within the limitation periods contained in the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.”
Brown v. Ford (1995)
“15 In enacting 25 O.S.1991 §§ 1101 et seq., Oklahoma’s Anti-Discrimination Act, the legislature doubtless sought to avoid imposing upon small shops the potentially disastrous expense of defending against a state-law claim for workplace discrimination, whether based upon…”
List v. Anchor Paint Manufacturing Co. (1996)
“, or by the OHahoma anti-discrimination statutes, 25 O.S.1981 §§ 1101 et seq. The case before us, while similar to Tate in some respects, nevertheless differs significantly.”
Jones v. Oklahoma City Public Schools (2010)
“Jones also alleged wrongful discharge in violation of the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1101 , et seq., but conceded below that this claim should be dismissed.”
MacDONALD v. CORPORATE INTEGRIS HEALTH (2014)
“In addition to relief provided by federal law, plaintiff alleged she was entitled to the full range of normal tort damages, including punitive damages, on her state law claim.”
Smith v. PIONEER MASONRY, INC. (2009)
“This Court found the record in support of the federal court's question to implicitly ask: "Are state-law remedies prescribed by Oklahoma's anti-discrimination statute, 25 O.S.1981 §§ 1101 et seq. [the Act], exclusive for vindication of a racially motivated wrongful or…”
Collier v. Insignia Financial Group (1999)
“¶ 13 Central to assessment of the remedial schemes provided for by the Act is the language of 25 O.S.1991 § 1101, which provides in pertinent part: A.”
Pellegrino v. State, Ex Rel. Cameron University, Ex Rel. Board of Regents (2003)
“2d 1303 , where we said that the notice provisions of the GTCA did not apply to an employment discrimination claim brought pursuant to 25 O.S.1991 § 1101 et seq. In other words, the GTCA procedure applies to a “tort claim” as such is defined by the GTCA.”
Marshall v. OK Rental & Leasing, Inc. (1997)
“1992), where this Court recognized that a racially motivated discharge action under Burk was not preempted by Title VII or by Oklahoma’s anti-discrimination statutes, 25 O.S.1981, §§ 1101, et seq., because the remedies available to the plaintiff in Tate were significantly less…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1101(A) — 5 cases
MacDONALD v. CORPORATE INTEGRIS HEALTH (2014)
“In addition to relief provided by federal law, plaintiff alleged she was entitled to the full range of normal tort damages, including punitive damages, on her state law claim.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1101(a) — 3 cases
Duncan v. City of Nichols Hills (1996)
“The court of appeals erred in concluding that a claim filed pursuant to 25 O.S.1991, § 1101 et seq., is barred if not brought within the limitation periods contained in the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.”
Collier v. Insignia Financial Group (1999)
“¶ 13 Central to assessment of the remedial schemes provided for by the Act is the language of 25 O.S.1991 § 1101, which provides in pertinent part: A.”
Marshall v. OK Rental & Leasing, Inc. (1997)
“1992), where this Court recognized that a racially motivated discharge action under Burk was not preempted by Title VII or by Oklahoma’s anti-discrimination statutes, 25 O.S.1981, §§ 1101, et seq., because the remedies available to the plaintiff in Tate were significantly less…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1101(b) — 2 cases
Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc. (1992)
“3 For a complete answer we must address a question expressly tendered in the parties’ briefs and fairly comprised in the plaintiff’s federal-court complaint allegations, although not explicitly posed: Are state-law remedies prescribed by Oklahoma’s anti-discrimination statute,…”
Vantine v. City of Tulsa (1973)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.