Court Opinion

ID: 9797612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:25:55.806542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:24.818406
License: Public Domain

WINCHESTER, J.,
with whom LAVENDER and HARGRAVE, JJ. join, dissenting.
¶ 1 There is no medical finding by a doctor that appellant had a communicable disease in the instant matter. Indeed, the information given to appellant is generic information given to anyone who suffers from diarrhea and vomiting. Discharge papers given to appellant merely state, “Diarrhea can be caused by many different conditions.... Vomiting can be caused by many different medical problems.... ” See Plaintiffs Exhibit B to Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, April 15, 2002. Specific references to appellant are with regard to his return to work and his work/activity restrictions. In this regard, the discharge form states: “Work/Activity Restrictions: NONE.” The doctor stated no work/activity restrictions on the very day appellant went to the emergency room. The discharge form states under the category “Return to Work” the following: “Off Work/School through Wed, 12 Dec 01.” However, the form also states: “If you wish to return to work sooner than the date indicated above, ... please call us.” While appellant says he vomited, had diarrhea, and received treatment in the emergency room, the doctor who treated appellant does not state that he was diagnosed with an intesti*731nal infection caused by bacteria or any other infectious disease.
¶ 2 The public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine applies only when the constitutional, statutory or decisional law that contains the public policy is concise and specific. We stated in Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22, ¶ 17, 770 P.2d 24, 28, that the public policy exception to the at-will termination rule exists “... 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.” The majority suggests that 63 O.S. 2001, § l-1102(a), § l-1102(c), § 1-1109(a)(4) provides a public policy basis for purposes of Burk determinations in the instant matter. I disagree. I believe this language is of such a general nature that it fails to place an employer on notice as to what acts violate public policy, if any, espoused by this statute, unless a doctor diagnoses a preparer of food with a communicable disease.
¶ 3 The statute, 63 O.S.2001, § l-1102(a), § 1 — 1102(e), § l-1109(a)(4), uses at least two broad, sweeping terms that create uncertainty for an employer trying to ascertain its precise meaning vis-a-vis an action for violation of the public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine. The statutory language, including the undefined terms, “insanitary conditions” and “unwholesome,” is imprecise. It invites subjective interpretations and standards. Unless the language is clear enough to determine what public policies rise to the level of being actionable, so neither employee nor employer is jeopardized when an employment decision is made, then the narrow exception to the employment at will doctrine is not triggered.
¶ 4 Absent a doctor’s diagnosis of communicable disease, a determination regarding whether preparation of food by appellant would render it “unwholesome,” or under “insanitary conditions” is subjective on the appellant’s part and the appellee’s part, as well. It invites vagueness rather than the clear and convincing standard we deemed necessary in Burk. In this case, the medical record does not establish whether appellant suffered diarrhea and vomiting due to an infectious condition. Therefore, a determination as to whether his preparation of food rendered it “unwholesome,” or under “insanitary conditions” is not supported by the doctor’s exam, given the vague medical record and the vague language contained in the statutes upon which the majority relies.
¶ 5 The statutes relied upon by the majority in the instant matter fall far short of the specificity required to trigger the narrow exception we set forth in Burk. The instant circumstances simply do not give rise to the type of public policy exception Burk envisions. The majority opinion creates uncertainty for employer and employee in trying to apply this public policy exception.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.