Court Opinion

ID: 9777737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:22:06.405665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:00.500304
License: Public Domain

WATT, J.,
with whom KAUGER, J. joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
1 1 I agree with the majority's determination that an unclassified employee can maintain an action pursuant to the Protection of Labor Act (Labor Protection Act), 40 0.8. 2001 165.1 et seq. I express no opinion on whether the same employee may be entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to 40 O.S. 2001 165.9 1 allowing an employee to recover both unpaid wages and liquidated damages. I dissent on two grounds. First, the majority has not merely "reformulated" the question but has gone outside of the question certified to promulgate an advisory opinion on the issue of liquidated damages. Second, the majority's opinion appears internally inconsistent in its treatment of the terms "employee" and "employer" within the confines of the Labor Protection Act, ignoring long-established rules of statutory construction.
T2 1) The majority's pronouncement on the liquidated damages issue amounts to nothing more than a prohibited advisory opinion.
T3 It is not this Court's province to intrude upon the certifying court's decision *515making process 2 Although we are given the authority to reformulate questions certified by 20 0.S.2001 1602.1,3 we should not utilize this tool in the guise of issuing an advisory opinion or to address a hypothetical question 4 especially in light of our well-established rule prohibiting such pro-5 This rule against promulgating advisory opinions does not change merely because the cause arises out of a federal certified question6 Furthermore, we have found unconvincing arguments that such questions should be answered simply because they will settle an undetermined area of state law that will affect the cause and all others with similar issues.7
T4 2) The majority ignores rules of statutory construction by its treatment of "employer" and "employee" differently in different sections of the Labor Protection Act producing an internally inconsistent document.
€5 The majority treats the defined terms "employer" and "employee" in one manner for determining the issue as to whether the unclassified employee may maintain an action under the Labor Protection Act and in a different manner altogether in relation to whether the same employee may recover liquidated damages for violation of the Act. As early as 1921, the Court recognized the general rule that where the same word is used in different parts of a statute, it will be presumed to be used in the same sense throughout; and where its meaning is clear, this meaning will be attached to it elsewhere. 8 Some nineteen years later, the Court stated that where a word is defined in a statute, "it will be presumed that it was used in that same sense throughout the section.9
CONCLUSION
¶6 No basis exists for the majority's gratuitous answer on the liquidated damages issue. It can be considered nothing more than a prohibited advisory opinion on an issue this Court was not asked to address. Furthermore, in promulgating the advisory opinion, it is likely that this Court has ended the federal litigation. Finally, the majority ignores long-established rules of statutory construction by treating the same defined words within the Labor Protection Act differently in various sections of the Act.
T 7 I concur to the extent that the majority determinates that an unclassified employee can maintain an action pursuant to the Protection of Labor Act (Labor Protection Act), 40 0.8$.2001 165.1 et seq. I concur in this portion of the opinion because it addresses
*516the question asked and properly states the current state of the law in Oklahoma. I dissent from the portion of the opinion which addresses the issue of liquidated damages because it unnecessarily goes outside the parameters of the question certified rendering an advisory opinion on an issue of first impression in our jurisdiction.

. Title 40 0.$.2001 165.9 providing in pertinent part:
"A. Action by an employee to recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated, or such employee or employees may designate an agent or representative to maintain such action for and on behalf of all employees similarly situated for such » wages....

. Ball v. Wilshire Ins. Co., 2009 OK 38, ¶ 9, 221 P.3d 717.

. Title 20 0.$.2001 1602.1 providing:
"'Power to Reformulate Question. The Supreme Court of this state may reformulate a question of law certified to it."

. Comment to Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, § 4 (2008) providing in pertinent part: ~
''This section is new and authorizes the receiving court to 'reformulate' the certified question. Requiring a question to be answered precisely as it is certified imposes a counterproductive rigidity that could decrease the utility of the answer received. Permitting the receiving court to amend the certified question freely may also adversely affect the utility of the answer and result in the issuance of an advisory opinion ...." [Emphasis supplied.]
At least one Court limits its answers to federal certified questions confining them strictly to the questions certified. See, Western Savings & Loan Ass'n v. CFS Portales Ethanol I, Ltd., 107 N.M. 143, 754 P.2d 520 (1988).

. Matter of Adoption of Baby G., 2008 OK 92, ¶ 7, 195 P.3d 377 [Authored by Reif, J. and recognizing that this Court does not sit to decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions about issues not yet in controversy.]; Knight v. Miller, 2008 OK 81, ¶ 8, 195 P.3d 372; Scott v. Peterson, 2005 OK 84 ¶ 27, 126 P.3d 1232; Thomas v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 2004 OK 82, n. 3, 102 P.3d 133; City of Midwest City v. House of Realty, Inc., 2004 OK 56, n. 14, 100 P.3d 678; Tulsa County Budget Bd. v. Tulsa County Excise Bd., 2003 OK 103, n. 31, 81 P.3d 662.

. Ball v. Wilshire Ins. Co., see note 2, supra [Reif, J. concurring in the majority opinion.].

. Id.

. Walton v. Donnelly, Com'r of Finance and Accounting, 1921 OK 258, ¶ 0, 201 P. 367.

. Roberts v. Newell, 1940 OK 15, ¶ 5 101 P.2d 824.