Opinion ID: 170344
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: OADA Claim

Text: In Burk v. K-Mart Corp., the Oklahoma Supreme Court created a tort claim for at-will employees terminated in violation of public policy. 770 P.2d 24, 29 (Okla. 1989). 5 The Burk tort exists only when an employer violates “an 4 (...continued) “facts” inserted on appeal. In Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139, 1146 n.5 (10th Cir. 2003) no affidavits or documents presented conflicting facts, but the defendant “presented for the first time on appeal” a factual argument attempting to create a sham fact issue. We held these sham facts did not create a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. Likewise, in this case new “facts” were inserted into Ruleford’s response to Tulsa World’s proposed undisputed facts in its Reurged Motion. These new assertions were not supported by evidence in the record. 5 The Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (“OADA”) does not provide a civil cause of action for victims of age discrimination. See Saint v. Data Exch., 145 P.3d 1037, 1038-39 (Okla. 2006). The Oklahoma Supreme Court, however, provided a common-law tort remedy in Burk for at-will employees terminated in violation of a public policy. 770 P.2d at 29. In Saint, the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained that “there is a Burk tort remedy for those who allege (continued...) -11- Oklahoma public policy goal that is clearly articulated in existing Oklahoma law—constitutional, statutory or jurisprudential.” Clinton v. Logan County Election Bd., 29 P.3d 543, 545 (Okla. 2001). In Clinton, the Oklahoma Supreme Court limited the scope of the Burk tort remedy, explaining where a terminated employee has an adequate federal statutory remedy the Burk claim is not available. Id. at 546. Based on Clinton, Tulsa World moved to dismiss Ruleford’s OADA/Burk tort claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the ADEA claim was an adequate federal remedy precluding the state claim. The district court stayed the motion, however, due to a pending certification in another case. In Saint v. Data Exchange, the Oklahoma Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the ADEA was an adequate federal remedy sufficient to preclude a Burk tort claim. 145 P.3d at 1037. The Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded the federal remedy was not adequate and plaintiffs were entitled to bring both an ADEA and OADA claim. Id. at 1039. Before the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided the certified question in Saint, however, the district court granted Tulsa World’s original motion for summary judgment and therefore denied the motion to dismiss as moot. Although the district court later granted Ruleford’s motion to reconsider, 5 (...continued) employment age discrimination” under the OADA. 145 P.3d at 1039. -12- upon reconsideration it again granted summary judgment to Tulsa World on Ruleford’s ADEA and OADA/Burk tort claims. Ruleford suggests failure to stay this case, pending the outcome of Saint, was prejudicial. This argument is without merit. By granting summary judgment, the district court necessarily determined the underlying facts did not support Ruleford’s age discrimination claims. Ruleford could gain nothing from waiting for the outcome of Saint. If the Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded OADA claims were barred, Tulsa World’s motion to dismiss would have been granted. Instead, the Oklahoma court merely clarified that an OADA claim could be brought with an ADEA claim. Saint, 145 P.3d at 1039. Saint in no way revives Ruleford’s age discrimination claims. It merely establishes both claims may be brought together. Without evidence of age discrimination, however, neither the OADA nor ADEA claim could survive summary judgment. See Barker v. State Ins. Fund, 40 P.3d 463, 468 (Okla. 2001) (explaining plaintiff must establish that employers actions violated an established and well-defined public policy to prevail on a Burk tort claim). Ruleford failed to establish Tulsa World’s actions violated the OADA. Therefore, we hold Ruleford was not prejudiced and the district court did not err when it denied Tulsa World’s motion to dismiss as moot and granted summary judgment to Tulsa World. 6 6 Ruleford’s argument is also factually flawed. Although Saint, 145 P.3d at 1037, had not yet been decided when the district court initially granted summary (continued...) -13-