Opinion ID: 2518047
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Burk Tort Remedy

Text: ¶ 5 The Burk tort remedy is a common law cause of action against an employer based on public policy violation that is available to an employee when there is no other adequate remedy to redress the violation. Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22, 770 P.2d 24. It is an exception to the longstanding terminable-at-will employment doctrine applicable to employment of indefinite duration. 1989 OK 22 at ¶ 5, 770 P.2d at 26. The terminable-at-will employment doctrine allows an employer to discharge an employee for good cause, for no cause, or even for morally wrong cause without being liable for a legal wrong. Id. ¶ 6 Burk adopted the public policy exception to the terminable-at-will employment doctrine for a narrow class of cases in which the discharge is contrary to a clear mandate of public policy as articulated by constitutional, statutory or decisional law. 1989 OK 22 at ¶ 17, 770 P.2d at 28. Burk created a tort remedy limited to those situations where an employee is discharged for refusing to act in violation of an established and well-defined public policy or for performing an act consistent with a clear and compelling public policy. 1989 OK 22 at ¶ 19, 770 P.2d at 29. Burk cautioned that the public policy exception must be strictly applied: In light of the vague meaning of the term public policy we believe the public policy exception must be tightly circumscribed. 1989 OK 22 at ¶ 18, 770 P.2d at 28-29. ¶ 7 The Burk tort cause of action may be maintained upon the showing of three fundamental elements: 1) the plaintiff and defendant had a terminable-at-will employment relationship; 2) the employment relationship was terminated contrary to an identified compelling Oklahoma public policy that is clearly articulated in constitutional, statutory, or decisional law; and 3) there is no other adequate remedy to protect the identified public policy. McCrady v. Okla. Dept. of Public Safety, 2005 OK 67, ¶ 9, 122 P.3d 473, 475. Identifying the compelling public policy, the task we have here, is a question of law. Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc., 2008 OK 1, ¶ 9, 176 P.3d 1204, 1210. ¶ 8 According to Reynolds, Advanced Alarms illegally deducted time for lunch breaks when he actually worked, and Advanced Alarms wrongfully discharged him for seeking information from the Oklahoma Department of Labor as to whether he is legally entitled to be paid for the work he performed during his lunch breaks. The certified question specifies four labor statutes, 40 O.S.2001 and Supp.2006, §§ 165.2, 165.7, 165.8 and 199, and effectively asks whether these statutes 1) require an employer to pay an employee for work performed during lunch time and 2) impose liability upon the employer for discharging an employee who contacts the Oklahoma Department of Labor about the employer's lunch-break policy. As set out below, these statutes do not support Reynolds' Burk tort claim.