RETALIATION DEMAND LETTER

Oklahoma Anti-Retaliation and Wrongful Discharge Claims

[ATTORNEY/FIRM LETTERHEAD]

[Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[City, Oklahoma ZIP]
Tel: [Phone Number]
Fax: [Fax Number]
[Attorney Email]
[Oklahoma Bar Association Number]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [recipient_email]

[Date]

[Employer Contact Name]
[Title]
[Company Legal Name]
[Company Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Copy to:
[General Counsel]
[EPLI Carrier, if known]

Re: Unlawful Retaliation Against [Client Full Name]
OHRC Charge No.: [XXXXX] (if applicable)
EEOC Charge No.: [XXX-XXXX-XXXXX] (if applicable)
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO 12 OKLA. STAT. SECTION 2408

Dear [Mr./Ms./Mx. Last Name]:

This firm represents [Client Full Name] ("our client") in connection with claims of unlawful retaliation against [Company Legal Name] ("[Company Short Name]" or "the Company"). Please direct all future communications regarding this matter to our office.

Our client engaged in legally protected activity by [briefly describe protected activity], and [Company Short Name] retaliated by [briefly describe adverse action]. This retaliation violates Oklahoma law and exposes the Company to substantial liability for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

We write to demand immediate resolution of this matter and to advise that we are prepared to file suit if a satisfactory response is not received.

I. OKLAHOMA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Oklahoma Common Law Wrongful Discharge (Burk Tort)

Oklahoma recognizes a common law cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, established in the landmark case of Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22, 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989).

The Burk Tort:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that an at-will employee may bring a tort claim for wrongful discharge when the discharge violates a clear mandate of public policy as articulated in:
- Constitutional provisions
- Legislative enactments
- Judicial decisions

Key Burk Doctrine Cases:
- Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22, 770 P.2d 24 (establishing the doctrine)
- Collier v. Insignia Fin. Grp., 1999 OK 49, 981 P.2d 321 (refining elements)
- Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc., 2008 OK 1, 176 P.3d 1204 (healthcare whistleblowing)
- Vasek v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Noble County, 2008 OK 35, 186 P.3d 928 (public policy analysis)

Elements of a Burk Claim:
1. An actual or constructive discharge;
2. Of an at-will employee;
3. In significant part in retaliation for the employee's:
- Performance of an act consistent with a clear and compelling public policy; or
- Refusal to perform an act contrary to a clear and compelling public policy.

Statute of Limitations: Two (2) years for tort claims. 12 Okla. Stat. Section 95(A)(3).

Available Remedies:
- Compensatory damages (back pay, front pay, benefits)
- Damages for emotional distress
- Punitive damages
- Attorney's fees and costs

B. Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act

The Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, 25 Okla. Stat. Section 1101 et seq., prohibits discrimination and retaliation in employment.

Anti-Retaliation Provision: 25 Okla. Stat. Section 1901 prohibits retaliation against any person who has opposed any practice forbidden by the Act, filed a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing.

Protected Classes:
- Race
- Color
- Religion
- Sex (including pregnancy)
- National origin
- Age (40+)
- Disability
- Genetic information

Administrative Exhaustion: A charge must be filed with the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission (OHRC) within 180 days of the alleged violation. 25 Okla. Stat. Section 1502.

Remedies:
- Back pay
- Reinstatement
- Compensatory damages
- Attorney's fees and costs

C. Oklahoma Whistleblower Act (Public Employees)

The Oklahoma Whistleblower Act, 74 Okla. Stat. Section 840-2.5, protects state employees who report wrongdoing.

Protected Activity:
- Reporting violations of state or federal law
- Reporting misuse or misappropriation of public resources
- Reporting gross mismanagement or waste of public funds
- Reporting abuse of authority

Statute of Limitations: One (1) year from the date of the adverse action.

Note: This statute applies only to public employees. Private sector employees must rely on the Burk tort.

D. Workers' Compensation Retaliation

Oklahoma's Workers' Compensation Code prohibits retaliation against employees who file workers' compensation claims.

85A Okla. Stat. Section 7: Prohibits discharge or discrimination against an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim or testifying in a workers' compensation proceeding.

II. NATURE OF THE PROTECTED ACTIVITY

Our client engaged in one or more forms of protected activity that triggered [Company Short Name]'s unlawful retaliation:

A. Type of Protected Activity

[Check all that apply]

Refusal to Violate Public Policy (Burk Tort)
- [ ] Refused to participate in illegal activity
- [ ] Refused to violate statutory or regulatory requirements
- [ ] Refused to falsify records or documents
- [ ] Refused to engage in fraudulent conduct
- [ ] Refused to violate professional ethical standards

Reporting Violations of Public Policy (Burk Tort)
- [ ] Reported violations of law to management
- [ ] Reported violations to a government agency
- [ ] Reported safety violations or hazards
- [ ] Reported fraud or financial misconduct
- [ ] Reported patient care or healthcare violations
- [ ] Reported environmental violations

Opposition to Discrimination/Harassment (Anti-Discrimination Act)
- [ ] Complained internally about discrimination based on [race / color / religion / sex / national origin / age / disability / genetic information]
- [ ] Complained internally about harassment or hostile work environment
- [ ] Reported discrimination or harassment to human resources
- [ ] Filed a formal internal complaint or grievance

Participation in Discrimination Proceedings (Anti-Discrimination Act)
- [ ] Filed a Charge of Discrimination with OHRC or EEOC
- [ ] Participated in an OHRC investigation
- [ ] Testified or provided information in a discrimination proceeding
- [ ] Served as a witness in a co-worker's discrimination case

Workers' Compensation Activity
- [ ] Filed a workers' compensation claim
- [ ] Testified in a workers' compensation proceeding
- [ ] Sought treatment for a work-related injury

Other Protected Activity
- [ ] Engaged in concerted activity protected by the NLRA
- [ ] Reported OSHA violations
- [ ] [Other: describe]

B. Timeline of Protected Activity

C. Detailed Narrative

On [Date], our client [describe the protected activity in detail]:

[Provide comprehensive narrative including:
- What our client observed, learned, or experienced that prompted the protected activity
- The specific concerns raised or actions taken
- To whom the concerns were raised (names, titles)
- The manner of reporting (verbal, written, formal complaint)
- Any response received from management or HR
- Any instructions given to our client regarding the matter
- Any witnesses to the protected activity]

Our client's [complaint / report / testimony / action] was made in good faith and based on a reasonable belief that [the conduct complained of was unlawful / the information reported was accurate / the activity opposed was illegal].

III. THE RETALIATORY CONDUCT

A. Adverse Employment Actions

Following our client's protected activity, [Company Short Name] subjected [him/her/them] to the following retaliatory adverse employment actions:

[Check all applicable actions and provide details]

Termination/Constructive Discharge
- [ ] Our client was terminated on [Date]
- [ ] Our client was forced to resign due to intolerable conditions on [Date]

Demotion/Reassignment
- [ ] Demoted from [Former Position] to [New Position] on [Date]
- [ ] Reassigned to less desirable duties/location/shift on [Date]
- [ ] Stripped of [responsibilities / authority / direct reports] on [Date]

Compensation Reductions
- [ ] Salary reduced from $[Amount] to $[Amount] on [Date]
- [ ] Bonus denied or reduced on [Date]
- [ ] Hours reduced from [X] to [X] per week on [Date]

Performance/Discipline
- [ ] Received negative performance review on [Date] (previously had positive reviews)
- [ ] Placed on performance improvement plan (PIP) on [Date]
- [ ] Received written warning on [Date] for [pretextual reason]
- [ ] Suspended [with/without] pay from [Date] to [Date]

Hostile Treatment/Exclusion
- [ ] Excluded from meetings, communications, or decisions
- [ ] Subjected to increased scrutiny and micromanagement
- [ ] Isolated from coworkers or ostracized
- [ ] Given impossible tasks or set up to fail

Other Adverse Actions
- [ ] Denied promotion to [Position] on [Date]
- [ ] Negative reference provided to prospective employer
- [ ] [Other: describe]

B. Timeline of Retaliation

C. Evidence of Causal Connection

The causal connection between our client's protected activity and the adverse actions is demonstrated by:

1. Temporal Proximity

The adverse actions began just [X days/weeks] after our client's protected activity. Oklahoma courts recognize that close temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action supports an inference of causation. See Williams v. Tulsa Motels, 1998 OK CIV APP 107, 958 P.2d 1282.

2. Knowledge

The decision-makers who took adverse action against our client had knowledge of [his/her/their] protected activity.

3. Pattern of Antagonism

Following the protected activity, our client experienced a sudden shift in treatment from positive to hostile.

4. Pretext

The reasons offered by [Company Short Name] for the adverse actions are pretextual.

IV. LEGAL CLAIMS

A. Common Law Wrongful Discharge - Burk Tort

As established in Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22, 770 P.2d 24, our client is entitled to recover for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy because:

[Select applicable theory]

• [ ] Performance Theory: Our client was discharged in retaliation for performing an act consistent with a clear and compelling public policy, specifically [describe the protected conduct and cite the public policy source].

• [ ] Refusal Theory: Our client was discharged in retaliation for refusing to perform an act contrary to a clear and compelling public policy, specifically [describe the refusal and cite the public policy source].

The clear and compelling public policy at issue is established by [cite specific Oklahoma statute, constitutional provision, or administrative regulation].

B. Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act - Retaliation

25 Okla. Stat. Section 1901

Our client [opposed discrimination / filed a charge / testified / participated in an investigation] and suffered retaliation as a result.

The protected conduct related to discrimination based on [identify protected class under Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act].

C. Workers' Compensation Retaliation

85A Okla. Stat. Section 7

Our client was discharged or discriminated against for [filing a workers' compensation claim / testifying in a workers' compensation proceeding].

D. Federal Claims (If Applicable)

[Include if federal claims are being asserted alongside Oklahoma claims]

• [ ] Title VII Anti-Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3(a)
• [ ] 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (Race-Based Retaliation)
• [ ] ADA Anti-Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. Section 12203
• [ ] ADEA Anti-Retaliation, 29 U.S.C. Section 623(d)
• [ ] FLSA Anti-Retaliation, 29 U.S.C. Section 215(a)(3)

V. DAMAGES

A. Economic Damages

1. Lost Wages (Back Pay)

2. Lost Benefits

3. Front Pay

B. Compensatory Damages

For emotional distress and other non-economic harm:

• [Describe emotional impact]
• [Describe physical manifestations]
• [Describe impact on daily life]

Compensatory damages: $[Amount]

C. Punitive Damages

For willful, malicious, or egregious conduct:

Punitive damages: $[Amount]

See Rodgers v. Tecumseh Bank, 1988 OK 136, 756 P.2d 1223 (discussing punitive damages in employment context).

D. Interest

Pre-judgment interest as provided by Oklahoma law.

E. Attorney's Fees and Costs

Oklahoma law provides for recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in discrimination cases and Burk tort cases.

Estimated fees through trial: $[Amount]
Estimated costs: $[Amount]

F. Summary of Damages

VI. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based on the foregoing, we demand that [Company Short Name] pay $[Settlement Demand Amount] in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the unlawful retaliation against our client.

Settlement Terms

In addition to the monetary payment, settlement must include:

• [ ] Neutral Reference: [Company Short Name] will provide only dates of employment and final position
• [ ] Personnel File: Expungement of all documents related to the pretextual discipline and termination
• [ ] Non-Disparagement: Mutual non-disparagement provisions
• [ ] Confidentiality: Subject to negotiation
• [ ] Unemployment: [Company Short Name] will not contest unemployment benefits

VII. RESPONSE DEADLINE

Please respond to this demand in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt, no later than [Response Deadline Date].

Critical Deadlines:
- OHRC 180-day filing deadline: [Date]
- Burk tort statute of limitations (2 years): [Date]
- EEOC filing deadline (if applicable): [Date]

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we will file suit in [Oklahoma District Court, [County] County] or [United States District Court, Western/Eastern/Northern District of Oklahoma] asserting:

1. Common law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Burk tort)
2. Retaliation in violation of the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, 25 Okla. Stat. Section 1901 [if applicable]
3. Workers' compensation retaliation, 85A Okla. Stat. Section 7 [if applicable]
4. [Additional claims as applicable]

VIII. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION

This letter constitutes formal notice of litigation. [Company Short Name] must immediately implement a litigation hold to preserve all documents and ESI relevant to our client's employment, the protected activity, and all adverse actions.

Spoliation of evidence may result in sanctions and adverse inferences under Oklahoma law.

IX. CONFIDENTIALITY

This letter is a confidential settlement communication protected by 12 Okla. Stat. Section 2408 and applicable state law.

We are prepared to discuss resolution of this matter at your earliest convenience. Please contact me to arrange a settlement conference.

Sincerely,

[Attorney Name]
[Title]
[Firm Name]

[Attorney Signature Block]

Enclosures:
- [ ] OHRC Charge (if applicable)
- [ ] EEOC Charge (if applicable)
- [ ] Right to Sue Notice (if applicable)
- [ ] Authorization to Represent

cc: [Client Name] (via email)
[File]

OKLAHOMA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

The Burk Tort: Oklahoma's common law Burk tort provides robust protection for private sector employees who are discharged for performing acts consistent with public policy or refusing to perform acts contrary to public policy. This is the primary vehicle for private sector whistleblower claims in Oklahoma.

"Clear and Compelling" Public Policy: The public policy must be "clear and compelling" and articulated in constitutional provisions, legislative enactments, or judicial decisions. General principles or ethical standards are typically insufficient.

No Private Sector Whistleblower Statute: Oklahoma's Whistleblower Act applies only to public employees. Private sector employees must rely on the Burk tort for protection against retaliation for reporting illegal activity.

Healthcare Whistleblowing: Oklahoma courts have been particularly receptive to Burk claims by healthcare workers who report patient safety concerns. See Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc., 2008 OK 1.

Administrative Exhaustion for Discrimination Claims: Unlike the Burk tort (which may be filed directly in court), claims under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act require filing a charge with the OHRC within 180 days.

Punitive Damages Available: Punitive damages are available in Burk tort cases when the employer's conduct is willful, malicious, or demonstrates reckless disregard for the employee's rights.

Interplay with Federal Law: Practitioners should evaluate both state and federal claims, as protections may overlap and different statutes of limitations and remedies apply.

Workers' Compensation Reform: Be aware of recent changes to Oklahoma's workers' compensation system that may affect retaliation claims in that context.