Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Helen Jenean Burk v. K-Mart Corporation
Date: 02-07-1989
Case Number:
Judge: Thomas R. Brett
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Tulsa Employment Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Lynn Paul Mattson, Charles S. Plumb, and Kathy R. Neal
Description:
A terminable-at-will employee brought an action in contract and tort against her employer for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her employment contract. Both causes of action were brought in reliance on this Court's recent decision in Hall v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 713 P.2d 1027 (Okla.1985). The employee argued the employer's agents harassed her, prevented her from performing her duties and by so doing constructively discharged her from her job. She further asserts that the employer's agent told her he would not recommend her for promotion because of her sex. She seeks lost wages, damages for alleged injury to her reputation and punitive damages for breach of the implied covenant.
The employer denied the purported existence of a claim in tort for a breach of an implied covenant of good faith, and also asserted the contract action did not exist because the employee's termination resulted in no violation of the employee's constitutional rights.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma certified for this Court's answer pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.1981 §§ 1601 through 1612, six questions of law:
1. In Oklahoma, is there an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing in reference to termination in every employment-at-will contract?
2. Is the implied obligation of good faith mutual between the employer and employee?
3. Does the breach of such implied obligation, assuming there is one, sound in contract and/or tort?
4. If the answer to question No. 3 is "contract", what are the recoverable damages for breach of the implied covenant?
5. If the answer to question No. 3 is "tort", what is the character of defendant's conduct that would permit recovery of punitive damages?
6. Whether the answer to question No. 3 is tort or contract, or both, what is the extent of the duty, if any, of either party to mitigate damages?
We reject the implication of an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in every employment-at-will contract. Because we answer the first question in the negative it is unnecessary for us to address the remaining questions.
Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 1989 OK 22 (Okla. 1989)
Tulsa, Oklahoma employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a wrongful terminatino theory.
A terminable-at-will employee brought an action in contract and tort against her employer for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her employment contract. Both causes of action were brought in reliance on this Court's recent decision in Hall v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 713 P.2d 1027 (Okla.1985). The employee argued the employer's agents harassed her, prevented her from performing her duties and by so doing constructively discharged her from her job. She further asserts that the employer's agent told her he would not recommend her for promotion because of her sex. She seeks lost wages, damages for alleged injury to her reputation and punitive damages for breach of the implied covenant.
The employer denied the purported existence of a claim in tort for a breach of an implied covenant of good faith, and also asserted the contract action did not exist because the employee's termination resulted in no violation of the employee's constitutional rights.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma certified for this Court's answer pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.1981 §§ 1601 through 1612, six questions of law:
1. In Oklahoma, is there an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing in reference to termination in every employment-at-will contract?
2. Is the implied obligation of good faith mutual between the employer and employee?
3. Does the breach of such implied obligation, assuming there is one, sound in contract and/or tort?
4. If the answer to question No. 3 is "contract", what are the recoverable damages for breach of the implied covenant?
5. If the answer to question No. 3 is "tort", what is the character of defendant's conduct that would permit recovery of punitive damages?
6. Whether the answer to question No. 3 is tort or contract, or both, what is the extent of the duty, if any, of either party to mitigate damages?
We reject the implication of an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in every employment-at-will contract. Because we answer the first question in the negative it is unnecessary for us to address the remaining questions.
Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 1989 OK 22 (Okla. 1989)
Outcome:
Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Helen Jenean Burk v. K-Mart Corporation?
The outcome was: Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.
Which court heard Helen Jenean Burk v. K-Mart Corporation?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa County), OK. The presiding judge was Thomas R. Brett.
Who were the attorneys in Helen Jenean Burk v. K-Mart Corporation?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Tulsa Employment Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Lynn Paul Mattson, Charles S. Plumb, and Kathy R. Neal.
When was Helen Jenean Burk v. K-Mart Corporation decided?
This case was decided on February 7, 1989.