Opinion ID: 182452
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim One - Fraudulent Hiring

Text: Claim one of the complaint alleges a violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 167, which states: It shall be unlawful for any employer of labor doing business in the state, to induce, influence, persuade or engage workmen to change from one place to another in the state, or to bring workmen of any class or calling into this state to work in any of the departments of labor, through or by means of false or deceptive representations, false advertising or false pretenses concerning the kind and character of the work to be done, or amount and character of the compensation to be paid for such work or the sanitary or other conditions of employment or as to the existence or nonexistence of a strike or other trouble pending between employer and employees, at the time of or prior to such engagement. Failure to state in an advertisement, proposal or contract for the employment of workmen that there is a strike, lockout or other labor trouble at the place of the proposed employment, when in fact such strike, lockout or other labor troubles then actually exist at such place, shall be deemed a false advertisement and misrepresentation for the purposes of this section. Mr. Matthews alleged that LaBarge violated the statute when it induced him to relocate to Oklahoma with the false promise of being promoted to vice president of operations. The district court ruled the statute inapplicable because it protects only “workmen” and Mr. Matthews was not a “workman.” On appeal Mr. Matthews contends that the court erred because the statutory term workman refers to “all -7- people (hourly, supervisors, managers and executives, etc.).” Aplt. Br. at 13–14. We need not decide, however, whether Mr. Matthews falls within the statutory meaning of workman because there is an alternative ground upon which to affirm dismissal of this claim. See Ashby v. McKenna, 331 F.3d 1148, 1151 (10th Cir. 2003) (court may affirm on alternative grounds if “there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Mr. Matthews’s fraudulent-hiring claim does not come within the purview of § 167 because LaBarge’s alleged representation concerning promotion is not the type of employer conduct governed by the statute. The statute on its face focuses on the practice of recruiting strike breakers through false inducements. In an early case, the one purpose of the statute identified by the Oklahoma Supreme Court (although it did not rule out other purposes) was “protection . . . from the turmoil and strife that would probably result upon the importation of laborers, at a place and business where a strike is on.” Riter-Conley Mfg. Co. v. Wryn, 174 P. 280, 284 (Okla. 1918). Thus, the misrepresentations prohibited by the statute are limited to those regarding employment conditions typically associated with labor disputes: the character of work to be done, pay, sanitary conditions, and the existence of labor disputes. Mr. Matthews, however, was given the job for which he was hired, does not allege that he was misled with regard to his salary or the sanitary conditions at LaBarge, and alleges nothing akin to false -8- statements of a labor dispute. He thus fails to state a claim under Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 167.