Vasquez v. Dillards, Inc.
Oklahoma Supreme Court
381 P.3d 768, 2016 OK 89 (2016)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Jonnie Yvonne Vasquez (plaintiff) injured her neck and shoulder while working for Dillards, Inc. (defendant). Dillards, pursuant to the Opt-Out Act of the Oklahoma Employee Benefit Injury Act, had opted out of coverage of the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA). Under the Opt-Out Act, an employer could establish its own workers’-compensation plan. The Opt-Out Act required an employer’s plan to pay some of the same benefits as required by the AWCA, but the employer could create its own definition of covered injuries, among other things. Vasquez filed a claim under Dillards’s plan, which Dillards denied. Vasquez appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the commission), and Dillards removed the action to federal court, arguing that it was a federal question under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The federal court remanded the case to the commission. The commission determined that the Opt-Out Act was an unconstitutional special law and violated equal protection. Dillards filed a petition for review, arguing in part that the Opt-Out Act was not an unconstitutional special law because the class at issue was employers, and the law benefited employees with access to medical treatment and increased health and safety.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Watt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.