Opinion ID: 2607413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: except as altered by our constitution and statutes, the common law remains in full force

Text: By statutory mandate the common law remains in full force in this state, unless a statute explicitly provides to the contrary. [31] Oklahoma law does not permit legislative abrogation of the common law by implication; [32] rather, its alteration must be clearly and plainly expressed. [33] An intent to change the common law will not be presumed from an ambiguous, doubtful or inconclusive text. [34] A presumption favors the preservation of common-law rights. [35] Where the common law gives a remedy, and another is provided by statute, the latter is merely cumulative, unless the statute declares it to be exclusive. [36] Extensive amendments and additions were made in 1990 to Oklahoma's anti-discrimination statute. [37] It is inconsequential that the Act was initially passed before the public-policy tort exception came to be crafted in Burk. [38] The common law forms a dynamic and growing body of rules that change with the conditions of society. [39] In order to supplant effectively the public-policy tort exception, the legislature would have to make textually demonstrable its design to occupy the entire field of employment discrimination to the exclusion of all other legal sources. As we explain later, not only is such an all-inclusive scheme not apparent from a plain reading of the statute, but also its argued exclusivity would conflict with the Act's express purpose  to further the policies embodied in Title VII. [40] Moreover, to conclude today that the statute's vindication regime for racial discrimination is indeed exclusive would render the Act's remedies constitutionally infirm. [41]