{"id":"DUT-OK-019","kind":"duty","level":"court","jurisdiction":"Oklahoma","state":"OK","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma (Kauger, J., for the Court)","authority":"Okla. Const. art. VII; appeal retained from the District Court of Tulsa County; Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22, 770 P.2d 24","instrument":"Ho v. Tulsa Spine \u0026 Specialty Hospital, L.L.C., 2021 OK 68, 507 P.3d 673, Case No. 119,752","title":"Opinion reversing dismissal of a nurse\u0027s wrongful-discharge action: the Governor\u0027s COVID-19 emergency orders expressed established Oklahoma public policy binding a private hospital","dateIssued":"2021-12-14","effective":"2021-12-14 (declaring the law as it stood from March 24, 2020)","end":"n/a (holding applies to conduct \u0027from March 24, 2020, until April 30, 2020\u0027, the life of the elective-surgery postponement)","startDate":"2021-12-14","endDate":"","quarters":["2020Q2"],"types":["DUTY","HC","EMP","COND"],"addressees":["employers (private hospital; the holding\u0027s reasoning reaches every employer bound by the orders); health care facilities"],"clause":"At the time that the Governor issued the emergency orders, he did so within the full authority statutorily granted by the Legislature pursuant to 63 O.S. 2011 §§ 6403, and 683.1 and 683.9. The orders were limited to the time of a catastrophic health emergency. The orders expressed the public policy of the State of Oklahoma for the period the orders were effective","enforcement":"Tort liability for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Burk tort); reversal of dismissal and remand","functions":[],"notes":"A private employer that discharged an at-will employee for refusing to perform work the Governor\u0027s orders had postponed (elective surgeries under the Fourth and Seventh Amended EO 2020-07, Ex. OK-006, OK-011) faces a Burk wrongful-discharge tort, because \u0027the Legislature expressly granted the Governor authority to issue temporary emergency orders, and the orders expressed established public policy of curtailing an infectious disease\u0027 (para. 26); the Court held that \u0027the Governor\u0027s temporary orders were Legislatively mandated in a health crisis. They were designed to control infections, and provide a safe and sanitary environment for Oklahomans\u0027 (para. 24), and that \u0027health codes disseminated by the boards of health, as directed by the Legislature, are clear and compelling, articulated, well-defined, firmly established expressions of public policy\u0027 (para. 23); the employer\u0027s duty to conform its operations to the orders was therefore enforceable in tort by its own employees. Character as recorded: adjudication (workplace duty construed).","sourceUrl":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=490400","snapshot":"https://web.archive.org/web/20220124204553/https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=490400","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":619043,"grade":"primary","character":"adjudication","description":"","collection":"DUT-OK","url":"/library/DUT-OK-019","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/DUT-OK-019","citation":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma (Kauger, J., for the Court), Ho v. Tulsa Spine \u0026 Specialty Hospital, L.L.C., 2021 OK 68, 507 P.3d 673, Case No. 119,752 (Dec. 14, 2021) (Ex. DUT-OK-019)","stateName":"Oklahoma","related":["OK-006","OK-011","OK-049","OK-051","DUT-OK-003","DUT-OK-006","DUT-OK-007","DUT-OK-008","DUT-OK-020"]}