Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.

138 Citing cases

  1. Duncan v. City of Nichols Hills

    1996 OK 16 (Okla. 1996)   Cited 44 times
    Explaining that, "[h]ad [the plaintiff] asserted a cause of action in tort, or a parallel action as in Tate, the plain language of the [OGTCA] requires compliance with the notice provisions" but holding that OGTCA's notice provisions were "preempted with respect to claims brought pursuant to [Section 1901]"

    Under Oklahoma law, the legislative intent of a particular statute must be ascertain from language of the statute. Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218, 1228 (Okla. 1992); Hess v. Excise Board of McCurtain County, 698 P.2d 930, 932 (Okla. 1985).

  2. Smith v. Pioneer Masonry

    2009 OK 82 (Okla. 2009)   Cited 13 times
    In Pioneer Masonry, the Oklahoma Supreme Court considered "whether an employer with [fewer] than fifteen employees can incur Burk tort liability for wrongful termination of an employee based on racial discrimination prohibited by the [OADA]."

    Shephard v. CompSource Oklahoma, 2009 OK 25, ¶ 11, 209 P.3d 288, 292-93. ¶ 6 On the issue of public policy, Brown is also inconsistent with the teachings of Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 1992 OK 72, 833 P.2d 1218. The Tate opinion answered a question that was certified by a federal district court concerning the scope of a Burk tort grounded on racial discrimination.

  3. Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

    2008 OK 105 (Okla. 2009)   Cited 59 times
    Enumerating elements of a Burk claim

    ¶ 5 Saint v. Data Exchange, Inc., 2006 OK 59, 145 P.3d 1037 IMPLICITLY OVERRULEDList v. Anchor Paint Mfg. Co., 1996 OK 1, 910 P.2d 1011, AND IT SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY. ¶ 6 The Kruchowski plaintiffs argue that Saint clearly abrogated List's holding because List did not address what remedies were required by the Okla. Const. art., § 46.5 The Company contends that Saint was nothing more than a reiteration of this Court's prior limited holdings in cases such as Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 1992 OK 72, 833 P.2d 1218 and Collier v. Insignia Financial Group, 1999 OK 49, 981 P.2d 321. According to the parties, courts are not clear as to whether Saint impacted List's holding.

  4. Collier v. Insignia Financial Group

    1999 OK 49 (Okla. 1999)   Cited 47 times
    Finding that the Oklahoma Anti–Discrimination Act did not provide the exclusive remedial scheme for wrongful discharges based on sexual discrimination practices, but rather “cumulative of the common-law Burk remedy,” which avoided the “pitfall of according asymmetrical remedies to members of a single class of employment-discrimination victims.”

    See Duncan v. City of Nichols Hills, 1996 OK 16, 913 P.2d 1303, 1309.See Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 1992 OK 72, 833 P.2d 1218, 1222-23. Where in describing limitations on legislative power in the field of employment discrimination the Court noted:

  5. Atkinson v. Halliburton Co.

    1995 OK 104 (Okla. 1995)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies under the OADA is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit for handicap discrimination

    Therefore, we find that a handicap motivated discharge comes within the protection of Burk. In Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218, 1226 (Okla. 1992), we acknowledged that "[w]here the common law gives a remedy, and another is provided by statute, the latter is merely cumulative, unless the statute declares it to be exclusive." We find nothing in § 1901, nor in the rest of the Act which compels the abrogation of the common-law Burk claim.

  6. Davies v. American Airlines, Inc.

    971 F.2d 463 (10th Cir. 1992)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that a state-law claim of wrongful termination was not a minor dispute within the meaning of the RLA, and thus was not preempted

    Recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court laid to rest this question, which had divided federal courts in Oklahoma. In Tate v. Browning-Ferris, 833 P.2d 1218 (1992), the Court clearly held that a Burk action is available notwithstanding the availability of other remedies. Id. at 1223.

  7. Oliver v. Wackenhut Corp.

    Case Number CIV-09-97-C (W.D. Okla. May. 18, 2009)

    In order to avoid potential constitutional problems, that court interpreted the OADA as not providing the exclusive remedies for discriminatory practices based upon race and age, thereby permitting a Burk tort claim for such plaintiffs. See Saint v. Data Exchange, Inc., 2006 OK 59 ¶ 6, 145 P.3d at 1039; Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 1992 OK 72 ¶ 18, 833 P.2d 1218, 1229. The Oklahoma Supreme Court stated that such a reading of the OADA was necessary because "[w]hen a statute is susceptible to more than one construction, it must be given that interpretation which frees it from constitutional doubt rather than one that would make it fraught with fundamental-law infirmities."

  8. In re Amendments to the Okla. Unif. Jury Instructions - Civil (second).

    2014 OK 17 (Okla. 2014)   1 Legal Analyses

    Comments In Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 1992 OK 72 , ¶ 10, 833 P.2d 1218, 1225, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the public policy exception was applicable to a racially motivated discharge or one in retaliation for an employee's filing a racial discrimination complaint. Later, in Kruchowski v. The Weyerhauser Co., 2008 OK 105, ¶ 23, 202 P.3d 144, and Shirazi v. Childtime Learning Center, 2009 OK 13, ¶ 12, 204 P.3d 75, the Supreme Court decided that the public policy exception also applied to victims of unlawful discrimination, because victims of all forms of employment discrimination, including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age and handicap, must receive evenhanded treatment under art. 5, § 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

  9. In re Amending Revising Ouji-Civ

    2009 OK 26 (Okla. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    Comments In Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 1992 OK 72, ¶ 10, 833 P.2d 1218, 1225, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the public policy exception was applicable to a racially motivated discharge or one in retaliation for an employee's filing a racial discrimination complaint. Later, in Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2008 OK 105, H 23, 202 P.3d 144, and Shirazi v. Childtime Learning Center, 2009 OK 13, ¶ 12, 204 P.3d 75, the Supreme Court decided that the public policy exception also applied to victims of unlawful discrimination, because victims of all forms of employment discrimination, including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age and handicap, must receive evenhanded treatment under art. 5, § 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

  10. Wheat v. State

    241 P.3d 1150 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    In such cases, the employer commits " a tortious breach of contractual obligations, compensable in damages." Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 1992 OK 72, ¶ 9, 833 P.2d 1218, 1225 (emphasis and footnote omitted). The latter requirement is different for alleged victims of status-based discrimination, such as Wheat, as discussed in part two of this opinion.