Wrongful Termination Myths in Oklahoma

"We don't need a reason. You're fired." In Oklahoma, employers say this often—and in many cases, they are technically correct. Oklahoma is an "at-will" employment state, meaning that the default rule allows either the employer or the employee to end the relationship at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. But "at-will" is not a blank check. The doctrine has significant exceptions carved out by federal statutes, Oklahoma statutes, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court itself—and employers who ignore those limits can be held liable in court.

The leading case is Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989), in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that at-will employees may bring a tort claim when their discharge violates a clear mandate of public policy. That decision established what is now called the Burk tort—a cause of action that has been extended by subsequent cases to cover a range of situations, from whistleblowing to workers' compensation retaliation. Understanding these exceptions is the first step toward recognizing whether your own termination crossed the line from unfair to illegal.

What "At-Will" Actually Means—And What It Doesn't

The at-will doctrine is straightforward in its default form: absent a contract or a specific legal exception, either party can end the employment relationship without advance notice and without offering any explanation. An employer can fire you because the business is slow, because your personalities clash, or because they simply decided to move in a different direction. Those terminations may feel unjust, but they are generally lawful.

What at-will does not authorize is termination that violates a specific legal prohibition. An employer cannot fire you because of your race, your religion, or your disability. An employer cannot fire you because you filed a workers' compensation claim or reported illegal conduct. And an employer cannot fire you in a manner that breaches an enforceable contract—whether that contract is a formal written agreement or an implied promise arising from the company's own policies. The exceptions are where wrongful termination claims live, and in Oklahoma, they are numerous.

Discrimination: The Most Common Exception

Federal and Oklahoma law prohibit terminating employees because of their membership in a protected class. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Americans with Disabilities Act protects employees with qualifying disabilities and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations before resorting to termination. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects employees age 40 and older. And Oklahoma's own Anti-Discrimination Act, codified at 25 O.S. § 1302, extends similar protections under state law and covers employers with as few as 15 employees.

If a termination was motivated—even in part—by a protected characteristic, it is not a lawful exercise of at-will discretion. It is discrimination. Importantly, discrimination is rarely admitted openly. It is proven through circumstantial evidence: suspicious timing (fired shortly after disclosing a pregnancy or requesting a religious accommodation), inconsistent treatment (similarly situated employees outside the protected class kept their jobs), shifting explanations (the stated reason for the termination keeps changing), or a documented pattern of bias within the organization.

The central legal question in most discrimination cases is whether the employer's stated justification is pretextual—a cover story designed to conceal the true, discriminatory motive. Proving pretext requires showing that the reason the employer offers doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Perhaps there is no documentation of the alleged performance problems. Perhaps the "policy violation" didn't result in termination for anyone else. Perhaps the timeline of events simply doesn't match the employer's narrative. These inconsistencies are the building blocks of a successful wrongful termination case.

Retaliation: Firing Someone for Exercising Legal Rights

Retaliation claims arise when an employer fires someone not for who they are, but for what they did—specifically, for engaging in legally protected activity. Under both federal and Oklahoma law, several categories of retaliation are independently actionable.

Whistleblowing and Public Policy

Oklahoma's Burk tort protects employees who are discharged for refusing to participate in illegal activity, reporting illegal conduct to authorities, or performing a legal obligation such as serving on a jury. The core principle is that employers cannot use the threat of termination to discourage employees from fulfilling duties that serve the public interest. If you reported safety violations or refused to falsify records and were fired as a result, you may have a viable Burk tort claim.

Workers' Compensation Retaliation

Oklahoma law explicitly prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who file workers' compensation claims. Under 85A O.S. § 7, an employer may not discharge or discriminate against an employee because the employee has filed a claim, retained an attorney for a work injury, or testified in a workers' compensation proceeding. If your termination followed a workplace injury and the timing is suspicious, this protection may apply. For a deeper discussion of workplace retaliation claims generally, see our companion article.

FMLA Retaliation

The Family and Medical Leave Act (29 U.S.C. § 2615) protects eligible employees who take leave for qualifying medical or family reasons. Firing someone for requesting FMLA leave, for actually taking that leave, or shortly after they return from leave can give rise to a retaliation claim. Learn more about the mechanics of FMLA in our Oklahoma FMLA guide.

Title VII and EEOC Retaliation

Filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, participating in an EEOC investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices in the workplace are all protected activities under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. Firing someone for these actions is illegal retaliation and constitutes its own independent claim—separate from the underlying discrimination complaint. An employee can prevail on a retaliation claim even if the original discrimination charge is unsuccessful, because the law protects the act of reporting, not just the outcome.

Contract Claims: When At-Will Is Overridden

The at-will doctrine is a default, and it can be overridden by a contract. Executives and certain professionals often have written employment agreements specifying that termination requires "cause" and defining what constitutes cause—typically limited to incompetence, misconduct, or conviction of a crime. Firing someone without satisfying the contract's requirements is a breach of contract, and the remedies include the lost compensation the employee would have earned under the agreement.

Even without a formal written agreement, Oklahoma courts recognize that employee handbooks and consistent employer practices can create implied contracts. If a handbook states that employees will only be terminated following progressive discipline—a verbal warning, then a written warning, then a final warning—and the employer skips the entire process, the employee may have an implied contract claim. The key question is whether the handbook language created a sufficiently definite promise. Vague aspirational statements like "we value our employees" are not enforceable, but specific, mandatory disciplinary procedures may create binding obligations the employer cannot simply ignore.

Other Statutory Protections

Beyond discrimination and retaliation, a patchwork of federal and state statutes creates specific protections against termination in particular contexts. The WARN Act requires large employers to provide 60 days' advance notice before mass layoffs affecting 100 or more employees. USERRA prohibits employers from firing employees because of their military service or obligations. OSHA protects employees who report workplace safety hazards from retaliation. And Oklahoma law protects employees from being fired without warning for serving on a jury—a duty that serves the judicial system and cannot lawfully be punished by an employer.

These statutes exist independently of the at-will doctrine and create their own causes of action, their own filing deadlines, and their own remedies. An employee who has been fired in violation of one of these statutes does not need to prove traditional discrimination or retaliation—only that the employer violated the specific protective statute.

How to Evaluate Whether Your Termination Was Wrongful

Not every unfair termination is an illegal one, and not every illegal termination is obvious. The distinction often comes down to circumstantial evidence—the kind of evidence that a skilled employment attorney knows how to identify and present.

Start by asking whether the reason your employer gave was the real reason. Does the timing of the termination align with a protected activity you engaged in, such as filing a complaint, requesting an accommodation, or taking medical leave? Were other employees who committed the same alleged infraction treated differently—and if so, is there something about your protected status that distinguishes you? Do you have documentation—emails, performance reviews, text messages, or witness accounts—that contradicts the employer's version of events?

If the answers to these questions suggest a disconnect between the stated reason and what actually happened, the at-will label does not end the inquiry. It is the beginning of one.

Frequently Asked Questions

I was fired without warning. Is that wrongful termination?

Not by itself. At-will employment does not require warnings, progressive discipline, or advance notice. However, if you were fired for an illegal reason—discrimination, retaliation for protected activity, or violation of a contractual obligation—the lack of any warning is relevant evidence supporting your claim. An employer who has no documentation of performance issues, yet fires you the day after you file a complaint, has a timing problem that a jury may find significant.

My employer says I violated a policy, but others violated the same policy and weren't fired. Does that help my case?

Yes. Disparate treatment is one of the strongest forms of circumstantial evidence in employment cases. If you can show that similarly situated employees outside your protected class were not terminated for the same conduct, it undermines the employer's stated justification and supports an inference that the real motive was discriminatory. Courts refer to these comparisons as "comparator evidence," and they are often central to a successful claim.

I was fired right after filing for workers' comp. Is that enough to prove retaliation?

Timing alone is not conclusive, but it is relevant and can be powerful. Oklahoma courts consider the temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action, along with other factors such as whether the employer's stated reason is consistent and credible, whether there is a pattern of retaliatory behavior, and whether direct evidence of retaliatory motive exists. The closer the timing, the stronger the inference—but building a complete case with corroborating evidence significantly improves your chances.

Can I be fired for something I posted on social media?

Generally, yes. Oklahoma is an at-will state, and most private-sector social media posts are not legally protected. However, there are important exceptions. Discussing wages, working conditions, or organizing activity with coworkers is protected under the National Labor Relations Act, even when done on social media. If the real motivation for the firing was a protected characteristic revealed in the post—such as a religious belief, political affiliation, or disability—that is discrimination regardless of the platform. And if the employer selectively enforces social media policies only against employees who have engaged in protected activity while ignoring similar posts by others, the disparate enforcement itself supports a retaliation claim.

How long do I have to file a wrongful termination claim in Oklahoma?

The deadline depends on the type of claim. EEOC charges for discrimination under Title VII or the ADA generally must be filed within 300 days of the adverse action in Oklahoma, thanks to the state's worksharing agreement with the EEOC. State tort claims, including Burk tort claims for public policy violations, are subject to a two-year statute of limitations under 12 O.S. § 95. Workers' compensation retaliation and breach of contract claims may have different deadlines. Because missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, consult an employment attorney as soon as possible.

Does it matter if my employer is small?

Yes. Federal anti-discrimination statutes have minimum employee thresholds. Title VII and the ADA apply to employers with 15 or more employees. The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more. Oklahoma's Anti-Discrimination Act also requires 15 or more employees. However, smaller employers are still subject to other legal protections, including the Burk tort, workers' compensation anti-retaliation statutes, and breach of contract claims. The size of your employer determines which statutes apply, but it does not make you entirely without recourse.

What if my employer gave no reason for firing me—just said I was "no longer a fit"?

An employer does not need to give a reason under at-will employment, and "no longer a fit" is not itself illegal. But the absence of a specific, documented reason can actually help your case if you have evidence of a protected activity or protected characteristic that the employer was likely motivated by. When an employer offers only a vague or shifting justification, it makes it harder for them to defend against a pretext argument. The less concrete their stated reason, the easier it may be to show that the real reason was something they would rather not admit.

---

At-will employment protects employer flexibility, but it does not authorize illegal terminations. Employers who hide discrimination or retaliation behind the "at-will" label are counting on you not knowing the difference. If you were fired and something doesn't add up—if the timing seems suspicious, if the stated reason doesn't match reality, or if similarly situated coworkers were treated differently—the at-will doctrine does not end the inquiry. It is the starting point.

At Addison Law Firm, we represent Oklahoma employees in wrongful termination and workplace retaliation claims. Our attorneys know how to uncover pretext, connect the dots between protected activity and adverse action, and hold employers accountable when they cross the line.

---

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.