25 Okla. Stat. § 1101

Law changed since The 2011 OADA amendments removed § 1101(A)'s express reference to federal civil rights law; this opinion interpreted the former purpose clause, as Hauck v. Putnam City Independent School District I001 — cluster 9923244 — filed 2022-08-24, explains.

Section 1101(A)’s statement of purpose does not make the federal Rehabilitation Act’s sole factor standard the standard for Oklahoma employment discrimination claims.

Bentley v. Cleveland County Board of County Commissioners ex rel. Cleveland County · filed 1994-11-29(A)

There is no question the state legislature sought to adopt the same policies intended under the Rehabilitation Act in preventing discrimination in the work place. However, under Oklahoma law, the legislative intent must be ascertained from the language of the pertinent statute. ... If the Oklahoma legislature wanted to adopt the federal standard it could have easily done so by adding the word “solely” to the statute. It did not do so.

Law changed since The 2011 OADA amendments removed § 1101(A)’s express reference to federal civil rights law, as Hauck v. Putnam City Independent School District I001 explains; this opinion interpreted the former purpose clause.

Section 1101(a) identifies implementing Title VII in Oklahoma as a purpose of the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, so the Act is interpreted together with Title VII when determining an employee’s rights under state law.

Marshall v. OK Rental & Leasing, Inc. · filed 1997-03-18(a)

One of the expressed purposes of Oklahoma’s anti-discrimination statute was to implement the provisions of Title VII into the State of Oklahoma. ... List teaches that we must therefore interpret Oklahoma’s anti-discrimination statute together with Title VII in order to determine an employee’s rights under state law.

Law changed since The 2011 OADA amendments made statutory remedies exclusive for covered employment discrimination claims and abolished related Burk public policy tort claims, as Bennett v. Windstream Communications, Inc. explains.

Section 1101(b) calls for liberal construction of the Act to further its purposes, preserving common-law wrongful-discharge claims based on racial discrimination or retaliation.

Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc. · filed 1992-05-22(b)

Interpreting the Act liberally, as we must, in furtherance of its general purposes, we are not persuaded that common-law rights stand abrogated for workers who claim to have been discharged under the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff in this case.

Law changed since The 2011 OADA amendments removed § 1101(A)’s express reference to federal civil rights law, as Hauck v. Putnam City Independent School District I001 explains; this opinion interpreted the former purpose clause.

Section 1101 states the purpose of Oklahoma’s anti-discrimination scheme by reference to specified federal discrimination laws; it does not make § 1983 part of that scheme.

Glenn v. State ex rel. Department of Corrections · filed 1997-04-01

However, we find those sections inapplicable. As part of Oklahoma’s statutory anti-discrimination scheme, section § 1101 clearly states its purpose, i.e., to “provide for execution within the state of the policies embodied” in the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. There is no mention of § 1983.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1101 incorporates Title VII’s policies but distinguishes those policies from the Act’s remedies.

Collier v. Insignia Financial Group · filed 1999-05-25(A)

Construction of this language leads inescapably to the conclusion that while the Legislature meant to incorporate the policies of Title VII (among other federal acts), it intended that the Act’s primary remedial scheme be that afforded by the Fair Housing Law.

Law changed since The 2011 OADA amendments made statutory remedies exclusive for covered employment discrimination claims and abolished related Burk public policy tort claims, as Bennett v. Windstream Communications, Inc. explains.

Section 1101's purpose of prohibiting racial discrimination in employment supplies public policy for a Burk tort claim regardless of employer size.

Smith v. PIONEER MASONRY, INC. · filed 2009-11-10

In conclusion, we hold that one of the primary purposes of Oklahoma's Anti-Discrimination Act is to prohibit racial discrimination in employment and to make such discrimination a legal wrong. This purpose constitutes a general declaration of public policy on this subject. To vindicate violations of this policy, the Act provides statutory remedies in cases where employers have more than fifteen employees, while the common law provides a Burk tort to all victims of racial discrimination regardless of the number of employees.