Opinion ID: 159646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Oklahoma Public Policy Claim

Text: 59 Shaw also alleged that she was terminated in violation of the public policy exception to the Oklahoma employment-at-will doctrine. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law on this state law claim, arguing that Oklahoma lacks a well-defined public policy in favor of employees who report the submission of false claims by their employers. The district court denied these Rule 50(a) motions and the jury subsequently rendered a verdict in favor of Shaw on her state law claim. Defendants now appeal the denial of those motions on that claim, and this court reviews those rulings de novo. See id. 60 In Burk v. K-Mart Corp., the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated that the public policy exception only applies in 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. 770 P.2d 24, 28 (Okla. 1989). Additionally, on appeal from the grant of summary judgment in federal district court in Burk, 21 the Tenth Circuit determined there was no Oklahoma public policy against terminating employees in retaliation for general whistle blowing. See Burk v. K Mart Corp., 956 F.2d 213, 214 (10th Cir. 1992). 61 The Tenth Circuit has also determined that whistle blowing under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act does not fall under the Oklahoma public policy exception. See Richmond v. ONEOK, Inc., 120 F.3d 205, 210 (10th Cir. 1997); 29 U.S.C. 201-219; 29 U.S.C. 2601-2654. In Richmond, this court stated that public policy exception claims must have their basis in Oklahoma state law. 120 F.3d at 210; see also McKenzie v. Renberg's Inc., 94 F.3d 1478, 1487-88 (10th Cir. 1996). 62 The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has held, however, that an employee who alleged he was terminated for reporting violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to his superiors stated a claim for wrongful discharge within the Burk public policy exception. See Tyler v. Original Chili Bowl, Inc., 934 P.2d 1106, 1108-09 (Okla. Ct. App. 1997). In Griffin v. Mullinix, decided seven months after Tyler, the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated that the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act did not, standing alone, constitute a statement of a well-defined Oklahoma public policy as demanded by Burk. See Griffin v. Mullinix, 947 P.2d 177, 180 (Okla. 1997). The Griffin court cited with approval this court's decision in McKenzie, stating, The Oklahoma Legislature, not this Court or Congress, is primarily vested with the responsibility to declare the public policy of this state. Id. 63 Although perhaps falling short of a categorical statement that federal law can never be the basis for a claim under the public policy exception, the Griffin court's statement is sufficient authority that the FCA is not a statement of a well-defined Oklahoma public policy. 22 The FCA thus cannot be the basis, standing alone, for a claim under the Burk public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. Because Shaw failed to point out any Oklahoma decision, statute or constitutional provision supporting employees who report FCA violations, this court reverses the denial of Defendants' Rule 50(a) motions on Shaw's state wrongful discharge claim. 23 Additionally, because the FCA does not provide for punitive damages, and because the jury was instructed to award punitive damages only for a violation of Oklahoma public policy, the award of punitive damages is vacated. 24 See 31 U.S.C. 3730(h).