Case Title: SHIRAZI v. CHILDTIME LEARNING CENTER, INC.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 106089

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
SHIRAZI v. CHILDTIME LEARNING CENTER, INC.  SHIRAZI v. CHILDTIME LEARNING CENTER, INC. 2009 OK 13 204 P.3d 75 Case Number: 106089 Decided: 02/24/2009 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ANA MARIA SHIRAZI Plaintiff, v. CHILDTIME LEARNING CENTER, INC. Defendant. CERTIFIED QUESTIONS OF LAW FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Honorable Robin J. Cauthron, District Judge ¶0 The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified two questions of Oklahoma Law under the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 2001 §§1601-1611. Must a plaintiff make a showing that federal statutory remedies or state law remedies are "inadequate" to assert a Burk tort for race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap discrimination? No. The Okla. Const. art. 5, §46 requires that the same remedies must be applicable to everyone within the same class of employment discrimination. The same class of employment discrimination, as recognized by QUESTION ANSWERED. Mark Hammons, Amber L. Hurst, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff. Elaine R. Turner, Elisabeth E. Muckala, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified two questions of Oklahoma Law under the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 2001 §§1601-1611, ¶2 The plaintiff, Ana Maria Shirazi (Shirazi), was employed by the defendant, Childtime Learning Center, Inc. (the Center) as a teacher. After Shirazi was terminated from employment, she brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma alleging that during her employment, she was subjected to discriminatory and harassing employment practices based on race, national origin, and age. ¶3 On July 14, 2008, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma filed an order certifying two questions of law to this Court concerning the "adequacy" of federal or state remedies available to a plaintiff asserting race, national origin, or age discrimination claims and the availability of a Burk tort. On December 16, 2008, the Center filed its Notice to the Court of Settlement Agreement asserting that a settlement agreement had been reached. ¶4 On January 9, 2009, we directed Shirazi to show cause why the questions were not moot. She responded, arguing that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine was applicable, ¶5 ¶6 Shirazi argues that pursuant to Saint v. Data Exchange, Inc., 2006 OK 59, 145 P.3d 1037 , the Okla. Const. art. 5, §46,6 requires all remedies which are recognized in the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act7 to be the same. The Center contends that although Saint recognized that a constitutional "unified class" was mandated, "equal" statutory remedies were not required, and the need for the plaintiff to show that her remedies were "inadequate" was not eliminated. ¶7 In Saint v. Data Exchange, Inc., 2006 OK 59, 145 P.3d 1037 , the Court addressed whether a Burk tort remedy was available to an age-discrimination plaintiff. The Saint plaintiff brought an age discrimination suit in Federal Court, asserting claims under the federal age discrimination statute8 and Oklahoma's public policy against age discrimination as embodied by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, 25 O.S. 2001 §§1101-1901. The plaintiff's argument was that the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act created a unified class of persons who are the victims of handicap, race, gender, or age discrimination; therefore, equal remedies are required for all those persons under art. 5, §46 of the Oklahoma Constitution.9 We agreed with the plaintiff's argument.10 ¶8 On December 16, 2008, we decided Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co., ¶9 In Kruchowski, we held that a plaintiff may pursue a state law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy when the available remedies to the same class of employment discrimination victims are not uniform and evenhanded - regardless of whether the remedies originate under federal or state law. It is only when the available remedies to the victim are not the same as those remedies which are provided for like or similar discrimination that we will craft an appropriate common law remedy. We also noted that because a Burk claim's actionable character is anchored in the employer's discharge in a breach of Oklahoma's public policy, the plaintiff must show either that a breach of Oklahoma's public policy occurred for which there is no statutorily-crafted remedy or that the available statutory remedy in existence is not the same as those provided for work-related discrimination within the same employment class. ¶10 Once again, we reiterate that rather than focus on the adequacy of the remedies available to a plaintiff, pursuant to the Okla. Const. Art. 5 §46, Saint v. Data Exchange, Inc., CONCLUSION ¶11 In Saint v. Data Exchange, Inc., ¶12 Today, we hold that the Okla. Const. art. 5 §46 requires that the same remedies must be applicable to everyone within the same class of employment discrimination. The same class of employment discrimination, as recognized by QUESTION ANSWERED. Edmondson, C.J., Hargrave, Opala, Kauger, Colbert, Reif, JJ., concur. Taylor, V.C.J., Watt, Winchester, JJ., dissent. FOOT