In Oklahoma, a general law of intentional misconduct exists which recognizes that, when a person invades the legal interests of another with the desire to cause harm or acts with the knowledge that an injury is substantially certain to result from the person’s conduct, that person has committed an intentional tort. But the Oklahoma Legislature has enacted a law making workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy when the employer acts with knowledge that an injury is substantially certain to result from the employer’s conduct. The Legislature has thus extended the workers’ compensation law, which concerns accidents and has never covered intentional misconduct, to cover certain intentional misconduct by employers.

CCL’s Andre M. Mura, along with Larry Tawwater and Darren Tawwater of the Tawwater Law Firm, are challenging the constitutionality of this law in Wells v. Oklahoma Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. The complaint in this case, filed by a family member of a deceased employee in state district court, alleges that the employer either desired to cause the employee harm or knew that such harm was substantially certain to occur from its actions. Recognizing that the Oklahoma Legislature has enacted a law that purports to eliminate the substantial-certainty standard, the complaint also seeks a declaration that the Oklahoma Legislature’s adoption of a stricter standard of intent for a worker’s intentional tort claim against employers than the Restatement standard of intent which would be applied to any other intentional tort violates the Oklahoma Constitution’s prohibitions on special laws, Okla. Const. art 5, §§ 46, 59. To be clear, this is not a legal challenge to the entire workers’ compensation law, which is constitutional because it applies equally to all similarly situated individuals; this is a challenge to a single provision, 85 O.S. § 12, which does not embrace all the classes that it should naturally embrace, and creates preferences and establishes inequality, in violation of the Constitution.

The Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the statute is constitutional, and that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for intentional tort as defined by statute. Plaintiff has filed a response urging the trial court to deny the motion because the statute is an unconstitutional special law, and because the Defendant has failed to show that the complaint is deficient.

This case presents a significant constitutional question which may ultimately be decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.