A. An employer may not retaliate against an employee when the employee has in good faith: 1. Filed a claim under this act; 2. Retained a lawyer for representation regarding a claim under this act; 3. Instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under the provisions of this act; or 4. Testified or is about to testify in any proceeding under the provisions of this act. B. The district courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims based on this section. C. An employer which violates any provision of this section shall be liable in a district court action for reasonable damages, actual and punitive if applicable, suffered by an employee as a result of the violation. Exemplary or punitive damage awards made pursuant to this section shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). The employee shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. D. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs and a reasonable attorney fee. E. No employer may discharge an employee during a period of temporary total disability for the sole reason of being absent from work or for the purpose of avoiding payment of temporary total disability benefits to the injured employee. F. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to rehire or retain an employee who, after temporary total disability has been exhausted, is determined by a physician to be physically unable to perform his or her assigned duties, or whose position is no longer available. G. This section shall not be construed as establishing an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. H. The remedies provided for in this section shall be exclusive with respect to any claim arising out of the conduct described in subsection A of this section. Added by Laws 2013, c. 208, § 7, eff. Feb. 1, 2014. Amended by Laws 2019, c. 476, § 5, emerg. eff. May 28, 2019.
Notes of Decisions
Southon v. Oklahoma Tire Recyclers, LLC, 443 P.3d 566 (Okla. 2019).
· cites it 21× “*568 ¶1 The issues presented to this Court are: (1) whether 85A O.S.Supp. 2013 § 7 unconstitutionally restricts a plaintiff's right to jury trial, (2) whether section 7 denies Southon his right to due process, (3) whether section 7 wrongfully classifies workers' compensation…”
Southon v. Oklahoma Tire Recyclers, LLC, 2019 OK 37 (Okla. 2019).
· cites it 23× “He further asserted that, to the extent it governs his wrongful termination claim, 85A O.S.Supp. 2013 § 7 violates several provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution.”
Adair v. City of Muskogee, 823 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2016).
“Laws 208 , § 171 (current version at Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 7). 1 The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment.”
Young v. Station 27, Inc., 2017 OK 68 (Okla. 2017).
· cites it 96× “Defendants filed two motions to dismiss and argued 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 7 created an exclusive statutory remedy for plaintiff before the Workers' Compensation Commission.”
Mathis v. Kerr, 2024 OK 52 (Okla. 2024).
· cites it 13× “The statute has not been amended since 2019, and 85A O.S. 2021 §7 currently provides in pertinent part: A.”
Henson v. Amerigas Propane, Inc., 681 F. App'x 697 (10th Cir. 2017).
“Laws 208, § 171 (current version at Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 7). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Amerigas.”
Keever v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2015 OK CIV APP 91 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).
“an employer shall not be required to rehire or retain an employee who, after temporary total disability has been exhausted, is determined by a physician to be physically unable to perform his or her assigned duties .”
Hernandez v. Educ. Dev. Corp., 2022 OK CIV APP 21 (Okla. Civ. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, Defendant asserted that, pursuant to 85A O.S. 2013 §7 Burk tort claim. Burk claim is not available when there is an adequate statutory remedy.”
Keever v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2015 OK CIV APP 91 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “The current version of former § 5(C) and § 341(C) retaliatory discharge statutes, 85A O.S.2014 § 7(F), in relevant part, now provides ".”
Upchurch v. Wastequip (10th Cir. 2022).
“” Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 7 (2019). The Workers’ Compensation Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide such claims.”
Upchurch v. Wastequip, LLC (E.D. Okla. 2021).
“Title 85A O.S. § 7 was enacted in 2013, becoming effective February 1, 2014, and provides: A.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 7(B) — 1 case
Mathis v. Kerr, 2024 OK 52 (Okla. 2024).
“The statute has not been amended since 2019, and 85A O.S. 2021 §7 currently provides in pertinent part: A.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 7(E) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 7(F) — 2 cases
Keever v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2015 OK CIV APP 91 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).
“an employer shall not be required to rehire or retain an employee who, after temporary total disability has been exhausted, is determined by a physician to be physically unable to perform his or her assigned duties .”
Keever v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2015 OK CIV APP 91 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).
“The current version of former § 5(C) and § 341(C) retaliatory discharge statutes, 85A O.S.2014 § 7(F), in relevant part, now provides ".”
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.