Opinion ID: 1375082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusivity of Statutory Claims

Text: This Court recognized a limited public policy exception to the terminable-at-will rule as an actionable tort claim in cases in which the discharge is contrary to public policy. Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989). There can be no doubt that handicap discrimination in the workplace is a clear contravention of the public policy declared by the Act. Therefore, we find that a handicap motivated discharge comes within the protection of Burk. In Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218, 1226 (Okla. 1992), we acknowledged that [w]here 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. We find nothing in § 1901, nor in the rest of the Act which compels the abrogation of the common-law Burk claim. We stated in Tate that the Act does not provide exclusive remedy for racial discrimination. Tate, 833 P.2d at 1226-27. We likewise find that the Act does not provide exclusive remedy for handicap discrimination. The plaintiff may pursue a tort claim for discharge from employment in violation of public policy without pleading the statutory claims authorized by the Act.