A. It is a discriminatory practice for an employer: 1. To fail or refuse to hire, to discharge, or otherwise to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, privileges or responsibilities of employment, because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information or disability, unless the employer can demonstrate that accommodation for the disability would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such employer; or 2. To limit, segregate, or classify an employee or applicant for employment in a way which would deprive or tend to deprive an individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of an employee, because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information or disability, unless the employer can demonstrate that accommodation for the disability would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such employer. B. This section does not apply to the employment of an individual by his or her parents, spouse, or child or to employment in the domestic service of the employer. Added by Laws 1968, c. 388, § 302. Amended by Laws 1981, c. 231, § 2; Laws 1985, c. 165, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 1985; Laws 2011, c. 270, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2011.
Notes of Decisions
Duncan v. City of Nichols Hills, 913 P.2d 1303 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 5× “[7] In the present case, Duncan asserted a claim against the City for allegedly terminating him because of a handicap, in violation of 25 O.S.1991, § 1302. Duncan urges that this claim is premised on a state civil rights statute designed to implement the policies embodied in the…”
Brown v. Ford, 905 P.2d 223 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 4× “The legislative purpose in enacting 25 O.S.1991 § 1302 18 bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective and the challenged statute is gender neutral.”
Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989).
· cites it 2× “1985 §§ 1302, 1505(c)(1) (discriminatory practice for an employer to discharge an individual because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap and the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission has authority to order reinstatement with or without back pay, less…”
Stevenson v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6918 (Cal. 1997).
· cites it 2× “02 ; Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1302 ; Or. Rev. Stat.”
Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2008 OK 105 (Okla. 2009).
· cites it 2× “§ 626 (b), and Oklahoma's Anti-Discrimination Act, Okla.Stat. tit. 25, § 1302. (11) L. List also claims wrongful discharge in violation of public policy as articulated by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 623(d), and Oklahoma's Anti-Discrimination Act, Okla.”
Bennett v. Windstream Commc'ns, Inc., 792 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2015).
“The OADA makes it unlawful for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire, to discharge, or otherwise to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, privileges or responsibilities of employment” because of sex or age.”
List v. Anchor Paint Mfg. Co., 910 P.2d 1011 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 626 (b), and Oklahoma’s Anti-Discrimination Act, Okla.Stat. tit. 25, § 1302. (11) L. List also claims wrongful discharge in violation of public policy as articulated by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 623(d), and Oklahoma’s Anti-Discrimination Act, Okla.”
Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992).
“The pertinent terms of 25 O.S.1981 § 1302 are: "A. It is a discriminatory practice for an employer: 1.”
Wardlow v. Great Lakes Express Co., 339 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “34(2)(a). In addition a number of states use the more restrictive bona fide occupation qualification (BFOQ) exception.”
Angove v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 70 F. App'x 500 (10th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 206 and Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 25, § 1302 by paying Angove at a rate lower than that paid to a female in the same position, defamation, and tortious interference with an employment relationship.”
Tilghman v. Kirby, 662 F. App'x 598 (10th Cir. 2016).
“See Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1302 (protecting against discriminatory employment practices based on “race, col- or, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information or disability”).”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1302(A) — 3 cases
Brown v. Ford, 905 P.2d 223 (Okla. 1995).
“The legislative purpose in enacting 25 O.S.1991 § 1302 18 bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective and the challenged statute is gender neutral.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1302(A)(1) — 4 cases
Duncan v. City of Nichols Hills, 913 P.2d 1303 (Okla. 1996).
“[7] In the present case, Duncan asserted a claim against the City for allegedly terminating him because of a handicap, in violation of 25 O.S.1991, § 1302. Duncan urges that this claim is premised on a state civil rights statute designed to implement the policies embodied in the…”
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.