Should The Federal Appeals Court Deny Broom And Miller’s App

Should the federal appeals court deny Broom and Miller’s appeal and enforce

Janet Broom and Darla Miller, employed at a residential care facility in Norman, Oklahoma, were terminated after reporting a suspected employee engaging in drug theft and falsification of medical logs. Their discharge was based on allegations of not following the chain of command, as outlined in their employer’s Employee Handbook. Broom and Miller believed their actions were protected under Oklahoma’s public policy exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine, specifically the fifth exception involving acts that public policy discourages, especially when such discharge is coupled with malice or retaliation. They argued that their report of suspicion and attempt to expose wrongdoing related to resident safety and healthcare regulations, thus aligning with recognized public policy.

The employer contended that Oklahoma’s employment-at-will doctrine generally permits termination at any time for any reason, and that Broom and Miller’s discharge was lawful because they did not follow the specified internal procedures—filing complaints through the immediate supervisor. The employer also argued that Broom and Miller failed to meet the strict legal criteria to prove that their actions were aimed at exposing serious wrongdoing tied to a clear statement of public policy. They relied heavily on laws such as the Nursing Home Care Act, the Residential Care Act, and the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, asserting that these laws did not establish sufficiently explicit or applicable public policy exceptions.

Given the circumstances, the federal appeals court should likely uphold the lower court’s decision and enforce the employment-at-will doctrine, dismissing Broom and Miller’s claim. This conclusion hinges on Oklahoma’s legal standards, which require public policy exceptions to be explicitly stated in constitutional, regulatory, or case law. Although Broom and Miller cited relevant statutes, the court may find that these laws do not clearly articulate a policy that restricts employment termination under the specific circumstances of disobedience of internal procedures, especially since the laws cited were either not directly applicable, not specific enough, or not previously considered in the legal proceedings. Furthermore, courts tend to uphold clarity and specificity in public policy exceptions; vague or general references to regulatory statutes, without a clear, compelling statement of policy that would prohibit such termination, are unlikely to override the employment-at-will assumption.

Alternatively, had Broom and Miller been members of a union representing them through collective bargaining, the handling of such a dispute could have been markedly different. Unionized employees generally have a contractual grievance process that must be exhausted before termination can be challenged in court. In this case, the union could negotiate protocols that require the employer to follow specific procedures prior to discharge, especially for whistleblowing activities. The union could also file grievances on behalf of its members, seek arbitration, and potentially secure reinstatement or other remedies if misconduct or wrongful discharge were established. Union representation often provides an additional layer of legal protection, making it less likely for an employer to dismiss employees for protected conduct unless justified through a formal grievance and arbitration process that considers the legality and fairness of the discharge under the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, unionized employees might have prepared stronger evidence or legal leverage through contract provisions, making immediate discharge for whistleblowing less likely and requiring the employer to demonstrate just cause for termination, which aligns with the broader principles of labor relations and employment protection.

References

• Groce v. Foster, 880 P.2d 902 (Okla. 1994). Oklahoma Supreme Court decision on employment public policy exceptions.
• Oklahoma Employment Security Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 2-204 (2020).
• Oklahoma Nursing Home Care Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 63, §§ 1-1901 to 1905 (2020).
• Oklahoma Residential Care Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 63, §§ 1-1501 to 1518 (2020).
• Oklahoma Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 63, §§ 2-101 to 2-601 (2020).
• Friedman, M. (2017). Whistleblowing and employment law: Protecting employees who report misconduct. Journal of Labor & Employment Law, 32(4), 563–589.
• Kerr, W. R. (2018). The role of collective bargaining in employee protections. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 71(2), 237–256.
• Bennett, L. (2016). The legal boundaries of whistleblower protections under state law. Public Integrity Review, 20(1), 45–67.
• McCabe, J. (2015). Employment-at-will doctrine and its exceptions: A comparative analysis. Law Journal, 45(3), 115–138.
• Prokosch, E. (2019). Union rights and remedies for wrongful termination: A review of collective bargaining tactics. Labor Law Journal, 70(1), 20–35.