Remedies - Procedure. A. A cause of action for employment-based discrimination is hereby created and any common law remedies are hereby abolished. B. In order to have standing in a court of law to allege discrimination arising from an employment-related matter, in a cause of action against an employer for discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, genetic information with respect to the employee, or retaliation, an aggrieved party must, within one hundred eighty (180) days from the last date of alleged discrimination, file a charge of discrimination in employment with the Attorney General's Office of Civil Rights Enforcement or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the basis of discrimination believed to have been perpetrated on the aggrieved party. Upon completion of any investigation, the Attorney General's Office of Civil Rights Enforcement may transmit the results of any administrative hearing and determination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or issue the complaining party a Notice of a Right to Sue. C. Should a charge of discrimination be filed with the Attorney General's Office of Civil Rights Enforcement and not be resolved to the satisfaction of the charging party within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of filing of such charge, the Attorney General's Office of Civil Rights Enforcement, upon request of any party shall issue a Notice of a Right to Sue, which must be first obtained in order to commence a civil action under this section. D. All civil actions brought pursuant to a Notice of a Right to Sue from the Attorney General's Office of Civil Rights Enforcement for redress against any person who is alleged to have discriminated against the charging party and against any person named as respondent in the charge shall be commenced in the district court of this state for the county in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed. E. Either party in any such action shall be entitled to a jury trial of any facts in dispute in the action.
F. The defending party may allege any defense that is available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. G. If it is determined in such action that the defendant or defendants in such action have discriminated against the charging party as charged in the petition, the court may enjoin the defendant or defendants from engaging in such unlawful employment practice charged in the petition, the court may enjoin respondent from engaging in such unlawful practice and order such affirmative action as reinstatement or hiring of employees. A prevailing aggrieved party shall also be entitled to backpay and an additional amount as liquidated damages. Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person discriminated against shall operate to reduce the backpay otherwise allowable. If an individual was refused employment or advancement, was suspended and/or was discharged for legitimate reasons other than discrimination as provided by this act, then no order of the court shall require the hiring, reinstatement or promotion of that individual as an employee, nor shall it order payment of any backpay. H. In any action or proceeding under this section, the court may allow a prevailing plaintiff or defendant a reasonable attorney fee. I. No action may be filed in district court as provided in this section more than ninety (90) days after receiving a Notice of a Right to Sue from the Attorney General's Office of Civil Rights Enforcement. Added by Laws 2011, c. 270, § 11, eff. Nov. 1, 2011. Amended by Laws 2013, c. 214, § 5, emerg. eff. May 7, 2013.
Notes of Decisions
Macdonald v. Corp. Integris Health, 321 P.3d 980 (Okla. 2014).
· cites it 5× “" In their answers to these complaints, defendants maintain: "Any damages available to plaintiff under state law for age and/or gender discrimination are limited to those enumerated in 25 O.S. § 1350." ¶4 Section 1350 1 became effective November 1, 2011, and was in effect on May…”
Bennett v. Windstream Commc'ns, Inc., 30 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (N.D. Okla. 2014).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350 (F). The Tenth Circuit has held that a plaintiffs OADA claim fails if her federal discrimination claims fail.”
Macdonald v. Corp. Integris Health, 2014 OK 10 (Okla. 2014).
· cites it 5× “" In their answers to these complaints, defendants maintain: "Any damages available to plaintiff under state law for age and/or gender discrimination are limited to those enumerated in 25 O.S. § 1350." ¶4 Section 1350 1 became effective November 1, 2011, and was in effect on May…”
Culp v. Reynolds (W.D. Okla. 2020).
· cites it 5× “48 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges (1) she was fired by Defendant Reynolds; (2) she was an at-will employee; (3) she “was fired in significant part for her role in encouraging the victim to report her sexual assault and for standing up for the victim’s rights to be free from…”
Wiedel v. Brentwood Extended Care & Rehab, LLC (E.D. Okla. 2025).
· cites it 3× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350 (B) (requiring the filing of a timely charge before an employee may “have standing in a court of law to allege discrimination arising from an employment-related matter”).”
Andrews v. Oklahoma Workers Comp. Comm'n (W.D. Okla. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350 (b). According to OWCC, the last discriminatory act—firing Plaintiff—took place on August 16, 2019, and Plaintiff did not file his statement of charges until March 9, 2020, 209 days later.”
Riebold v. FleetPride Inc (W.D. Okla. 2023).
· cites it 2× “FleetPride responds that Riebold’s tolling arguments fail because any delays by OCRE in investigating and determining his discrimination charge could have been easily remedied by plaintiff requesting the right-to-sue letter any time after December 1, 2020, as authorized by 25…”
Smith v. Norman City of (W.D. Okla. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350 (B). She maintains that because she filed an employment discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), she does not also have to provide the state or political subdivision with notice as required by the GTCA.”
Shelkett v. Fluffys Mgmt. Serv. LLC (W.D. Okla. 2023).
· cites it 2× “, after the “Oklahoma Legislature enacted 25 O.S. § 1350 to eliminate Burk tort claims arising from discrimination and retaliation;” and 3) “Plaintiff’s claim under the OADA, first alleged in his Amended Petition on June 23, 2023, was made far beyond the 90-day time limit or…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350(A) — 2 cases
Macdonald v. Corp. Integris Health, 2014 OK 10 (Okla. 2014).
“" In their answers to these complaints, defendants maintain: "Any damages available to plaintiff under state law for age and/or gender discrimination are limited to those enumerated in 25 O.S. § 1350." ¶4 Section 1350 1 became effective November 1, 2011, and was in effect on May…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350(B) — 5 cases
Macdonald v. Corp. Integris Health, 321 P.3d 980 (Okla. 2014).
“" In their answers to these complaints, defendants maintain: "Any damages available to plaintiff under state law for age and/or gender discrimination are limited to those enumerated in 25 O.S. § 1350." ¶4 Section 1350 1 became effective November 1, 2011, and was in effect on May…”
Macdonald v. Corp. Integris Health, 2014 OK 10 (Okla. 2014).
“" In their answers to these complaints, defendants maintain: "Any damages available to plaintiff under state law for age and/or gender discrimination are limited to those enumerated in 25 O.S. § 1350." ¶4 Section 1350 1 became effective November 1, 2011, and was in effect on May…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350(C) — 1 case
Riebold v. FleetPride Inc (W.D. Okla. 2023).
“FleetPride responds that Riebold’s tolling arguments fail because any delays by OCRE in investigating and determining his discrimination charge could have been easily remedied by plaintiff requesting the right-to-sue letter any time after December 1, 2020, as authorized by 25…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350(G) — 1 case
Andrews v. Oklahoma Workers Comp. Comm'n (W.D. Okla. 2021).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350 (b). According to OWCC, the last discriminatory act—firing Plaintiff—took place on August 16, 2019, and Plaintiff did not file his statement of charges until March 9, 2020, 209 days later.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350(I) — 2 cases
Culp v. Reynolds (W.D. Okla. 2020).
“48 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges (1) she was fired by Defendant Reynolds; (2) she was an at-will employee; (3) she “was fired in significant part for her role in encouraging the victim to report her sexual assault and for standing up for the victim’s rights to be free from…”
Shelkett v. Fluffys Mgmt. Serv. LLC (W.D. Okla. 2023).
“, after the “Oklahoma Legislature enacted 25 O.S. § 1350 to eliminate Burk tort claims arising from discrimination and retaliation;” and 3) “Plaintiff’s claim under the OADA, first alleged in his Amended Petition on June 23, 2023, was made far beyond the 90-day time limit or…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1350(b) — 1 case
Culp v. Reynolds (W.D. Okla. 2020).
“48 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges (1) she was fired by Defendant Reynolds; (2) she was an at-will employee; (3) she “was fired in significant part for her role in encouraging the victim to report her sexual assault and for standing up for the victim’s rights to be free from…”
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.