A. Any person aggrieved by a willful violation of the Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act may institute a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction within one (1) year of the alleged willful violation or be barred from obtaining the relief provided for in subsection B of this section. A willful violation of the Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act requires proof by the preponderance of the evidence that the employer had a specific intent to violate the act. B. A prevailing party may be awarded lost wages to which the person would have been entitled and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the aggrieved person shall operate to reduce the lost wages otherwise allowable. Reasonable costs and attorney fees may be awarded to the prevailing party, whether plaintiff or defendant. Added by Laws 1993, c. 355, § 13, emerg. eff. June 10, 1993. Amended by Laws 2011, c. 180, § 9, eff. Nov. 1, 2011.
Notes of Decisions
Williams v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2008).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 563 . The question posed in this case is whether an employee aggrieved by his employer’s federally-mandated drug test may sue under state law for violations of these procedural protections.”
Rice v. Valmont Indus., Inc., 951 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (N.D. Okla. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Subsequently, Valmont filed its motion for attorney fees, citing the Workplace Act, 40 O.S. § 563(B), and 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c).”
Potts v. Am. Castings, LLC (N.D. Okla. 2021).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 563 . Potts’ attempt to use the DAT Act fails because her claims really center on her being terminated because of her disability.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 563(A) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 563(B) — 2 cases
Rice v. Valmont Indus., Inc., 951 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (N.D. Okla. 2013).
“Subsequently, Valmont filed its motion for attorney fees, citing the Workplace Act, 40 O.S. § 563(B), and 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c).”
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.