Atkinson v. Halliburton Co.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1995
• Docket Number: No. 84805,84805
• Citation: 905 P.2D 772,1995 OK 104
• Parties: 4 A.D. Cases 1700, 1995 OK 104 Michael ATKINSON, Plaintiff, v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 772

905 P.2d 772

4 A.D. Cases 1700, 1995 OK 104

Michael ATKINSON, Plaintiff, v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

No. 84805.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 10, 1995.

Certified Questions from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

The Stipe Law Firm by Mark Wiemer, Oklahoma City, for Plaintiff.

Lytle, Soule & Curlee by Peter T. Van Dyke, Deborah S. Block and Sam Reynolds Fulkerson, Oklahoma City, for Defendant.

HODGES, Justice.

Pursuant to the Oklahoma Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, Okla.Stat. tit. 20, §§ 1601-1611 (1991), the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified the following questions to this Court:

(1) Whether a plaintiff may pursue a tort claim for discharge from employment in violation of public policy, without also pleading the statutory claims authorized by the statute enunciating the public policy; and

(2) if such action be maintained, whether an element of the tort claim is compliance with any procedural requirements set forth in the statute enunciating the public policy.

We answer question one in the affirmative. Plaintiff may pursue a tort claim for discharge from employment in violation of public policy without pleading the statutory claims authorized by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (the Act), Okla. Stat. tit. 25, §§ 1101-1901 (1991).

We answer question two in the affirmative. Since § 1901 of the Act provides a private cause of action for handicap discrimination when there is dissatisfaction with the outcome of the statutory procedures, plaintiff may not pursue a tort claim for discharge in violation of public policy without first complying with those procedures. Therefore, a prerequisite to filing a tort claim alleging discharge from employment in violation of Oklahoma's public policy against handicap discrimination is exhaustion of the procedural requirements of the Act.

I. RELEVANT FACTS

Plaintiff, Michael Atkinson, was hired by defendant, Halliburton Company, as a draftsman in the surface engineering department on April 1, 1974. Plaintiff is deaf, and was deaf at the time of his hiring. Defendant was aware of plaintiff's hearing impairment at the time of his hiring. Plaintiff was terminated on March 20, 1992, allegedly in conjunction with an ongoing reduction in defendant's work force.

On March 21, 1994, plaintiff filed a petition in the District Court of Stephens County alleging that he had been terminated in violation of Oklahoma's public policy against handicap discrimination. The case was removed by defendant to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on diversity jurisdiction.

Plaintiff did not file a charge of discrimination with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission (OHRC) prior to filing this action. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated Oklahoma public policy as set forth in the Oklahoma Anti- Discrimination Act, Okla.Stat. tit. 25, § 1302 (1991). Plaintiff did not join his public policy claim with any other cause of action, thus the issue arises of whether a public policy tort claim may be asserted if totally severed from statutory claims and statutory procedures.

II. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES PRESENTED

The legislature of this state enacted an anti-discrimination statute, Okla.Stat. tit. 25, §§ 1101-1901 (1991), with the purpose of "provid[ing] for execution within the state of the policies embodied in the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, ¹ the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, ² and Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ³...." Okla.Stat. tit. 25, § 1101 (1991). Sections 1501 through 1901 of the Act contain a detailed outline of an administrative scheme by which the goals of the Act are to be furthered. When discrimination exists, § 1505(A) directs that the OHRC is to "endeavor to eliminate the discriminatory practice by conference, conciliation and persuasion." This seems a clear indication that the public policy of this Act is not only to investigate and eliminate discriminatory practices, but also to decrease the litigation incident to charges of discrimination.

A. Exclusivity of Statutory Claims

This Court recognized a limited public policy exception to the terminable-at-will rule as an actionable tort claim in cases in which the discharge is contrary to public policy. Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla.1989). There can be no doubt that handicap discrimination in the workplace is a clear contravention of the public policy declared by the Act. 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.

We stated in Tate that the Act does not provide exclusive remedy for racial discrimination. Tate, 833 P.2d at 1226-27. We likewise find that the Act does not provide exclusive remedy for handicap discrimination. The plaintiff may pursue a tort claim for discharge from employment in violation of public policy without pleading the statutory claims authorized by the Act.

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Procedures

Plaintiff seeks to circumvent the administrative scheme and take his grievance directly to the courts of this state. It is a long established doctrine in Oklahoma that exhaustion of statutory remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite for resort to the courts. Martin v. Harrah Indep. School Dist., 543 P.2d 1370, 1372 (Okla.1976); Sanders v. Oklahoma Employment Sec. Comm'n, 200 Okl. 366, 195 P.2d 272 (1948); Speaker v. Board of County Comm'rs of Oklahoma County, 312 P.2d 438 (Okla.1957). The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a well settled rule that aids in the administration of justice and prevents transfers to the courts of duties imposed by law on administrative agencies. Martin, 543 P.2d at 1372.

There are several reasons for the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies. These include the expertise of the agency in the subject matter area and notions of judicial efficiency. Id. at 1374 (citing McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969)). The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stated well the reasons for the exhaustion rule:

1) Carries out legislative purpose in granting authority to an agency by discouraging frequent deliberate flouting of administrative procedure 2) protects agency autonomy by allowing the agency in the first instance to apply its expertise and correct its errors;

3) aids judicial review by allowing parties to develop material facts in agency proceedings; and

4) promotes judicial economy by avoiding repetition of judicial and administrative factfinding and perhaps the necessity for judicial involvement.

Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1484 (D.C.Cir.1984).

A complaining party may be successful in vindicating his rights in the administrative process. If he is required to pursue his administrative remedies first, the courts may never have to intervene. Martin, 543 P.2d at 1374. Such is the reasoning behind the exhaustion doctrine applied by federal courts in regard to the federal statutes referenced by § 1101 of the Act.

The United States Supreme Court stated in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 180-81, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 2374, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989), that "[i]n Title VII, Congress set up an elaborate administrative procedure ... that is designed to assist in the investigation of claims of racial discrimination ... and to work towards the resolution of these claims through conciliation rather than litigation." The Supreme Court further stated that if a plaintiff was allowed to bring a civil suit without first resorting to the administrative scheme of Title VII, "the detailed procedures of Title VII [would be] rendered a dead letter." Id. at 181, 109 S.Ct. at 2375; see also Stearns v. Consol. Management, Inc., 747 F.2d 1105, 1112 (7th Cir.1984) (stating that a fundamental objective of the federal antidiscrimination statutes is to avoid civil litigation through a statutorily mandated process of administrative conciliation).

C. Statutory Interpretation

Plaintiff argues that the administrative scheme outlined in the Act is permissive and may be utilized or not utilized at the discretion of the charging party. We do not agree. An examination of the language of § 1901 of the Act rebuts plaintiff's assertion. Applying established tools of statutory interpretation, we find that the administrative scheme of the Act was designed to precede resort to the courts.

"The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent." Naylor v. Petuskey, 834 P.2d 439, 440 (Okla.1992). The legislature summarized the purposes of the Act as "[a]n act to prevent discrimination ... and to provide for enforcement of its provisions through civil, administrative, and criminal proceedings...." 1968 Okla.Sess. Laws ch. 388. The legislature intended not only to combat discrimination, but also to provide the enforcement mechanisms necessary to do so.

The legislative intent may also be ascertained from the language in the title of an act. Naylor, 834 P.2d at 441. Section 1901 of the Act contains the provisions relating to discrimination on grounds of handicap. This section was added to the Act in 1990. The title of the act adding § 1901 was:

An Act relating to definition and general provisions; providing for filing charge for discrimination in employment on grounds of handicap; providing for enforcement through civil proceedings; providing time limit; providing venue; providing for jury trial; providing for...