proceedings - Orders - Appeals - Actions.
A. The Commissioner of Labor shall enforce and administer the provisions of this act and in any case where a civil action may be brought for the collection of a wage claim, the Commissioner of Labor may provide for an administrative proceeding to determine the validity and enforce collection of the claim. The administrative proceeding shall be conducted according to the Administrative Procedures Act. B. In any case when the Commissioner has received a wage complaint, the Commissioner may seek collection of such claim through administrative proceedings in a manner provided in this section. The Commissioner may join in a single administrative proceeding any number of wage claims against the same employer. The Commissioner shall serve upon the employer an order of determination directing the employer to pay to the Commissioner the amount of the wage claim and any penalty amounts. Service shall be made by regular mail to the employer's last-known address. The order of determination shall include: 1. A reference to the particular sections of the statutes or rules involved; 2. A short and concise statement of the basis for the amounts determined to be owed to each wage claimant; 3. A statement that the employer within twenty (20) days after receipt of the order of determination must pay in full the wage claim and any penalties assessed on appeal to district court; and 4. A statement that unless a written request for reconsideration is received by the Commissioner or the order is appealed to district court within the time specified, the order of determination shall become final. C. Upon failure of the employer to pay the amount specified in the order of determination or to request reconsideration or appeal to district court, the order of determination shall become final. D. A hearing shall be held in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act by the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee. The Commissioner shall adopt rules for such hearing. In any hearing before the Commissioner's designee, the designee is authorized to issue the final order in the case. E. Final administrative orders issued in a wage claim proceeding are subject to appeal pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. F. When an order under this section becomes final by operation of law or an appeal, and the amount due is not paid within twenty (20) days after the order becomes final, the order may be recorded with the county clerk in any county of this state. The clerk shall thereupon record the name of the person incurring the penalty and the amount of the penalty in the county clerk's lien record. The order may be collected as any other money judgment.
G. The remedies provided by Sections 165.1 through 165.11 of this title shall be additional to and not in substitution for and in no manner impair other remedies. Additionally, one or more individuals who are aggrieved by violation of any provision of Sections 165.1 through 165.11 of this title shall be entitled to bring an action in his or their own name to enforce the provisions of such sections. Laws 1955, p. 242, § 7, emerg. eff. June 6, 1955; Laws 1993, c. 263, § 3, emerg. eff. May 27, 1993.
Notes of Decisions
Feightner v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., 2003 OK 20 (Okla. 2003).
· cites it 5× “One, did the trial judge correctly give summary judgment to BOK on the overtime claim as barred by claim (res judicata) and/or issue (collateral estoppel) preclusion as having been previously litigated in an adjudicative administrative proceeding had before the Oklahoma…”
Agrawal v. Oklahoma Dept. of Labor, 2015 OK 67 (Okla. 2015).
· cites it 7× “Agrawal contends 40 O.S. §165.7(B) 16 prohibits such joinder, but that the ODOL improperly allowed Holland to join seven employers in each of the wage claim cases and found all of them liable.”
Transwestern Publ'g, L.L.C. v. Langdon, 2004 OK CIV APP 21 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004).
“40 O.S. § 165.7(E). ¶ 5 In this respect, an OAPA proceeding for judicial review of an agency’s administrative order is commenced by filing of a petition for review in the district court within thirty days after the aggrieved party is notified of the final agency order, and…”
Holland v. Agrawal, 2015 OK 68 (Okla. 2015).
“On January 18, 2011, Judge Parrish, Oklahoma County District Judge, entered an order which, in effect, stayed Holland's collection efforts pending appeal, by ruling that 40 O.S. § 165.7 bars collection of an award until all appeals have been finally adjudicated.”
Holland v. Agrawal, 2015 OK 68 (Okla. 2015).
· cites it 4× “A stay pending appeal to this Court, of a decision of the district court affirming a final administrative order issued in a wage claim proceeding pursuant to 40 O.S. §165.7, is governed by the provisions of 75 O.”
Red Rock Distrib. Co. v. State ex rel. Reneau, 993 P.2d 142 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999).
“” ¶ 4 After hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Williams’ claims met the definition of wages set forth at 40 O.S.1991 § 165.7, and that Red Rock did not contest the specific amount claimed by Williams — $1,800.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 165.7(B): 1 case
Agrawal v. Oklahoma Dept. of Labor, 2015 OK 67 (Okla. 2015).
“Agrawal contends 40 O.S. §165.7(B) 16 prohibits such joinder, but that the ODOL improperly allowed Holland to join seven employers in each of the wage claim cases and found all of them liable.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 165.7(D): 1 case
Feightner v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., 2003 OK 20 (Okla. 2003).
“One, did the trial judge correctly give summary judgment to BOK on the overtime claim as barred by claim (res judicata) and/or issue (collateral estoppel) preclusion as having been previously litigated in an adjudicative administrative proceeding had before the Oklahoma…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 165.7(E): 3 cases
Transwestern Publ'g, L.L.C. v. Langdon, 2004 OK CIV APP 21 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004).
“40 O.S. § 165.7(E). ¶ 5 In this respect, an OAPA proceeding for judicial review of an agency’s administrative order is commenced by filing of a petition for review in the district court within thirty days after the aggrieved party is notified of the final agency order, and…”
Agrawal v. Oklahoma Dept. of Labor, 2015 OK 67 (Okla. 2015).
“Agrawal contends 40 O.S. §165.7(B) 16 prohibits such joinder, but that the ODOL improperly allowed Holland to join seven employers in each of the wage claim cases and found all of them liable.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 165.7(G): 1 case
Feightner v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., 2003 OK 20 (Okla. 2003).
“One, did the trial judge correctly give summary judgment to BOK on the overtime claim as barred by claim (res judicata) and/or issue (collateral estoppel) preclusion as having been previously litigated in an adjudicative administrative proceeding had before the Oklahoma…”
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.