Opinion ID: 223616
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State Law Age Discrimination Claim

Text: Mr. Locke also appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on his claim for wrongful discharge in violation of Oklahoma public policy, pursuant to Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989). He argues that the more lenient “significant factor” burden of proof applies to this claim, rather than the ADEA’s “but-for” standard, and the district court erred in not applying the lower standard. We recognize the difference in legal standards, but conclude that Mr. Locke’s evidence does not meet the lower standard. -14- The significant-factor test “imposes much more than some de minimus burden on the plaintiff. It requires a showing of more than a mere causal link, in that a factor may be a cause without being significant.” Medlock v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 608 F.3d 1185, 1197 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets omitted) (applying Oklahoma law). As explained above, Mr. Locke “has failed to create a triable case that age played any role, much less a significant role, in the decision[] to terminate his employment.” Id. 6 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment on Mr. Locke’s Burk claim.