WRONGFUL TERMINATION DEMAND LETTER

Oklahoma Law

[ATTORNEY/FIRM LETTERHEAD]

[Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[City, State ZIP]
Tel: [Phone Number]
Fax: [Fax Number]
[Attorney Email]
[Oklahoma Bar Association No.]

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]

Re: Wrongful Termination of [Client Full Name]
Former Position: [Job Title]
Dates of Employment: [Start Date] through [Termination Date]
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION - 12 O.S. 2408

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

This firm represents [Client Full Name] ("our client") regarding [his/her/their] wrongful termination from employment with [Company Legal Name] ("[Company Short Name]") on [Termination Date]. Please direct all further communications to our office.

We write to demand immediate action to remedy the unlawful termination and to resolve this matter short of litigation. [Company Short Name]'s termination of our client violates Oklahoma law and exposes the Company to substantial liability.

I. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT LAW FRAMEWORK

A. At-Will Employment and Its Exceptions

Oklahoma follows the employment-at-will doctrine. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has recognized significant exceptions, most notably the Burk tort:

1. Burk Public Policy Tort

In Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989), the Oklahoma Supreme Court established a tort cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

The Burk tort applies when:
- Employee is discharged
- Discharge violates a clear mandate of Oklahoma public policy
- Public policy must be articulated in constitutional, statutory, or case law

See also Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992).

2. Implied Contract Exception

Oklahoma recognizes implied contracts based on employer handbooks and representations. See Langdon v. Saga Corp., 569 P.2d 524 (Okla. Ct. App. 1976).

3. Workers' Compensation Retaliation

85A O.S. 7 prohibits retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims.

B. Key Oklahoma Statutes

Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (25 O.S. 1101 et seq.)
- Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, genetic information
- Covers employers with 15+ employees
- Modeled after Title VII

Workers' Compensation Retaliation (85A O.S. 7)
- Prohibits discharge for filing workers' compensation claim
- 2-year statute of limitations

Oklahoma Whistleblower Act (74 O.S. 840-2.5)
- Protects state employees who report violations of law
- Limited to public sector

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Employment History

[Client Full Name] was employed by [Company Short Name] from [Start Date] through [Termination Date] as a [Job Title] in [City], Oklahoma.

Employment Summary:

Our client was a dedicated employee with an excellent performance record:
- [Describe positive performance history]
- [Describe promotions, raises, commendations]
- [Describe any relevant achievements]

B. The Protected Activity / Triggering Event

On or about [Date], our client [describe protected activity]:

• Refused to violate Oklahoma or federal law by [describe illegal act requested]
• Reported violations of law to [management/authorities]
• Filed a workers' compensation claim under 85A O.S. 7
• Exercised rights under [specific statute]
• [Other protected activity]

C. The Wrongful Termination

On [Termination Date], [Company Short Name] terminated our client, purportedly for [stated reason]. This stated reason is pretextual, as evidenced by:

1. Temporal proximity: The termination occurred just [X days/weeks] after the protected activity
2. Prior positive treatment: Our client had [no prior discipline / positive reviews / recent promotion]
3. Disparate treatment: Similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity were [not terminated / treated more favorably]
4. Shifting explanations: [Describe any inconsistent reasons given]
5. Direct evidence: [Describe any statements indicating true motive]

III. LEGAL CLAIMS UNDER OKLAHOMA LAW

A. Burk Tort - Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

[Company Short Name]'s termination of our client constitutes a Burk tort - wrongful discharge in violation of Oklahoma public policy.

Under Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989), Oklahoma recognizes a tort cause of action when an employee is discharged in violation of clear and compelling public policy.

Source of Public Policy: [Cite Oklahoma statute, constitutional provision, or court decision]

Application: Our client's [refusal to violate law / exercise of statutory right / reporting of illegal activity] is protected by Oklahoma public policy as articulated in [cite source].

Elements of Burk Tort:
1. Actual or constructive discharge
2. Discharge was in significant part a response to the exercise of the protected right or refusal to act in a manner contrary to public policy
3. The public policy must be clear and compelling, articulated in constitutional, statutory, or decisional law

See Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992); Vasek v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 186 P.3d 928 (Okla. 2008).

B. Retaliatory Discharge - Workers' Compensation (85A O.S. 7)

[If applicable:] Oklahoma law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who file workers' compensation claims.

85A O.S. 7 provides:

"No employer may discharge any employee because the employee has in good faith: 1. Filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits under this title..."

Our client filed a workers' compensation claim on [Date]. [Company Short Name]'s termination constitutes unlawful retaliation.

Remedies:
- Actual damages
- Reinstatement
- Court costs and attorney's fees

C. Breach of Implied Contract

[If applicable:] [Company Short Name]'s Employee Handbook and representations created an implied contract limiting termination to "just cause" and/or requiring specific procedures.

Evidence of implied contract:
- Employee Handbook provisions stating [quote relevant language]
- Personnel policies requiring [describe procedures]
- Oral representations by [Name] that [describe assurances]

See Langdon v. Saga Corp., 569 P.2d 524 (Okla. Ct. App. 1976).

D. Violation of Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (25 O.S. 1101 et seq.)

[If applicable:] [Company Short Name]'s termination was motivated by discrimination based on [protected characteristic].

The OADA prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information.

IV. DAMAGES

A. Economic Damages

1. Back Pay

2. Lost Benefits

3. Front Pay

B. Compensatory Damages (Non-Economic)

Our client has suffered severe emotional distress:
- [Describe anxiety, depression, humiliation]
- [Describe impact on health and relationships]
- [Describe medical treatment sought]

Emotional distress damages: $[Amount]

C. Punitive Damages

[Company Short Name]'s conduct was willful, malicious, and in conscious disregard of our client's rights.

Under Oklahoma law, punitive damages are available for Burk tort claims where conduct is egregious.

See 23 O.S. 9.1 (punitive damages standards).

Punitive damages: $[Amount]

D. Attorney's Fees

Under applicable Oklahoma statutes, our client may be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.

Estimated fees through trial: $[Amount]

E. Summary of Damages

V. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

We demand that [Company Short Name] pay $[Settlement Demand Amount] in full settlement of all claims.

Additional Terms:
- Neutral reference (dates and position only)
- No contest to unemployment benefits
- Expungement of personnel file
- Mutual non-disparagement
- Confidentiality (terms to be negotiated)

VI. RESPONSE DEADLINE

Please respond within fourteen (14) calendar days, no later than [Response Deadline Date].

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we are authorized to file suit in the [District Court of [County] County, Oklahoma / United States District Court for the [Eastern/Northern/Western] District of Oklahoma] without further notice.

Causes of Action:
1. Burk Tort - Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
2. Retaliatory Discharge in Violation of 85A O.S. 7
3. Breach of Implied Contract
4. Violation of Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act
5. [Other claims as applicable]

VII. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION

Immediately implement a litigation hold to preserve all relevant documents and ESI regarding our client's employment, performance, and termination.

VIII. CONFIDENTIALITY

This letter is protected by Oklahoma Evidence Code 2408 and constitutes a confidential settlement communication.

Sincerely,

[Attorney Name]
[Title]
[Firm Name]
[Oklahoma Bar Association No.]

Enclosures:
- Authorization to Represent

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

OKLAHOMA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES (Do Not Include in Final Letter)

Key Oklahoma Considerations

• Burk tort is the primary vehicle for wrongful termination claims in Oklahoma
• Public policy must be "clear and compelling" and articulated in law
• Oklahoma is a deferral state - 300-day EEOC deadline when filed with OAED
• Workers' compensation retaliation is a strong statutory claim
• OADA is modeled after Title VII with similar caps and procedures
• Punitive damages available for Burk claims but subject to 23 O.S. 9.1 standards
• Oklahoma has modified its workers' compensation system significantly in recent years

Venue Options

• Oklahoma District Court (general jurisdiction)
• Federal Court (if federal claims or diversity jurisdiction)
• Administrative: OAED/EEOC for discrimination claims

Statute of Limitations

Key Oklahoma Cases

• Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989) (establishing public policy tort)
• Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992) (expanding Burk)
• Vasek v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 186 P.3d 928 (Okla. 2008) (Burk elements)
• Groce v. Foster, 880 P.2d 902 (Okla. 1994) (public policy sources)
• Langdon v. Saga Corp., 569 P.2d 524 (Okla. Ct. App. 1976) (implied contract)