holding that a plaintiff must show that “the employment relationship was terminated contrary to an identified compelling Oklahoma public policy that is clearly articulated in constitutional, statutory, or decisional law” to maintain a cause of action under Burk
How later courts described this case
- holding that a plaintiff must show that “the employment relationship was terminated contrary to an identified compelling Oklahoma public policy that is clearly articulated in constitutional, statutory, or decisional law” to maintain a cause of action under Burk
- holding that the statutory sources cited by the employee did not articulate the relevant public policy to support the employee's Burk claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KAUGER, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶ 1 The question presented is: Does the Oklahoma Protection Labor Act, 40 O.S. §§ 165.7, 165.8 and 199, provide an established and well-defined public policy sufficient to support a Burk tort claim?
¶2 I would not reformulate the question. Rather, I would answer it as follows: Yes. (See, Vasek v. Board of County Commissioners, 2008 OK 35, ¶¶ 27-28 , 186 P.3d 928 ).
¶ 3 The certified facts reveal that this action will fail because Oklahoma does not have a clear and well-defined public policy requiring an employer to pay wages to the employee for work performed during the lunch break without the employer’s permission. However, instead of answering the question posed, we have reformulated the question to become the trier of the facts.