Opinion ID: 149135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Burk Tort Claim

Text: Medlock argues that the district court erred in summarily concluding that his Burk tort claim for age discrimination failed for the same reasons that his ADEA claim failed, because the two claims are governed by different causation standards. We recognize the difference in legal standards, but conclude that it is not material to the disposition of this case. While, as noted earlier, the significant factor test for the Burk tort claim does not require but-for causation, it imposes much more than some de minimus burden on the plaintiff. It requir[es] a showing of more than a mere causal link, in that a factor may be a cause without being significant. Elzey v. Forrest, 739 P.2d 999, 1001-02 (Okla.1987). The plaintiff must do more than show that [age] was only one of many possible factors resulting in his discharge. Wallace v. Halliburton Co., 850 P.2d 1056, 1059 (Okla. 1993); see White v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1414, 1419-20 (10th Cir.1990) (holding trial court erred by instructing jury that employer would be liable under Burk if plaintiff showed improper motive was a factor in the decision to discharge him, rather than a significant factor). It is not necessary to set out our evaluation of the deficiencies in Medlock's evidence all over again here specifically with reference to the significant-factor test. What we have already said should adequately explain why, in our view, Medlock has failed to create a triable case that age played any role, much less a significant role, in the decisions to terminate his employment under Article 52 and subsequently to deny reinstatement in the grievance process. [10] In particular, the mere fact that Cortez left open the hypothetical possibility that Medlock could have been denied reinstatement for some other reason even if he had admitted fault for his runaway accident did not affirmatively support an inference that age discrimination would have been an operative factor, much less a significant one. To recognize this point is not to somehow improperly equate the but-for standard applicable to Medlock's ADEA claim with the significant-factor test that governs the disposition of his Burk tort claim. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.