April 20, 2026 | By: Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP and Trisha E. Bunce

Oklahoma legislators are considering SB 277, a proposal that would create a state-run paid family and medical leave insurance program known as the Oklahoma State Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act. If enacted, SB 277 would require employer payroll contributions to a new state fund and would create job protection and benefit-continuation obligations similar in several respects to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), while also adding new state-specific rules.

Pending legislation: SB 277 Bill Information (Oklahoma Legislature)

Committee Substitute text: SB 277 CS (PDF)

Official bill summary: SB 277 CS Bill Summary (PDF)

Other employer-related bill categories pending this session

• Payroll and wage-withholding administration (e.g., wage garnishments)
• Earned wage access / on-demand pay regulation
• Employer health plan transparency and contracting restrictions
• Unemployment insurance eligibility and appeals process changes

Spotlight on SB 277 (as currently drafted)

1. Covered Employers
   SB 277 defines “Employer” broadly to include essentially any individual or business employing any person in Oklahoma. The Committee Substitute text does not describe a minimum employee-count threshold in the employer definition.
2. Covered Individuals (employees and certain self-employed persons)
   • A “covered individual” includes a person who earns a threshold amount determined annually by the Oklahoma Workforce Commission during the base period or alternative base period.
   • Self-employed persons may elect coverage and participate if they meet statutory requirements.
   • “Family member” includes child, parent/guardian (including in loco parentis relationships), spouse, grandparent, grandchild, and sibling (including biological, foster, adoptive, and step relationships).
3. Qualifying Reasons for Paid Leave
   
   • Caring for a new child (birth, adoption, foster placement) and certain pre-placement needs.
   • Caring for a family member with a serious health condition.
   • The employee’s own serious health condition (including pregnancy or pregnancy loss).
   • Qualifying exigency leave, safe leave, and other reasons referenced in the FMLA framework (as incorporated in SB 277).
4. Duration of Leave and Wage Replacement
   
   • Leave is capped at 12 weeks for the categories described in the Committee Substitute in an application year.
   • Wage replacement uses a two-tier formula based on the covered individual’s average weekly wage: 90% up to 50% of the statewide average weekly wage; 50% above that threshold.
   • Benefits are not payable until the individual accumulates at least 4 hours of family and medical leave.
   • Employees with multiple jobs may elect leave from one or both jobs; intermittent or reduced schedule leave is permitted.
5. What Employers Would Be Required to Do
   
   • Payroll contributions: remit contributions to a new Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund for each employee, in the form/manner set by the Oklahoma Workforce Commission.
   • Withholding option: employers may deduct a portion of required contributions from employee wages (as determined by the Commission) but must remit 100% of required contributions.
   • Job restoration: restore employees returning from leave to the same or equivalent position with equivalent seniority, status, pay, and benefits.
   • Benefit continuation: maintain health care benefits during leave as if the employee had continued working, with premium-sharing continuing as before.
   • Anti-interference/anti-retaliation: do not interfere with or retaliate against employees for requesting or using leave; do not count SB 277 leave as an attendance occurrence under absence-control policies.
   • Notice requirements: provide written notice of rights and key program information; violations are subject to statutory fines (as described in the Committee Substitute and bill summary).
6. Coordination with FMLA, PTO, and Disability Programs
   SB 277 provides that leave taken with SB 277 benefits that also qualify as FMLA leave generally runs concurrently with FMLA leave. The bill also addresses coordination with short-term disability and separate employer leave banks, and limits when employers can require employees to exhaust accrued PTO.

Recommended Steps for Employers

1. Identify internal owners (HR, payroll, benefits, legal) and map current leave workflows (FMLA/STD/PTO).
2. Ask payroll providers what configuration changes are needed for a state-run leave contribution program.
3. Draft an employee notice template aligned to SB 277’s notice topics.
4. Audit attendance and discipline policies to ensure protected leave would not be counted as an occurrence.
5. Plan staffing coverage for intermittent leave and extended absences.

For questions regarding SB 277, or any other employment and labor questions, please contact your GableGotwals attorney or a member of our Employment & Labor Group.

Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP
918-595-4810
cthrutchley@gablelaw.com

Trisha E. Bunce
405-235-5596
tbunce@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a federal court action seeking to vacate an employment arbitrator’s orders, preserving a favorable arbitration result for a multi-state employer.

February 26, 2026 | By: Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP

Oklahoma’s public policy against employee non-competes is unusually strong and is codified. Under 15 O.S. § 219A, a former employee may engage in the same or similar business after termination provided the employee does not directly solicit the sale of goods or services from the established customers of the former employer. Any contractual provision that conflicts with § 219A is void and unenforceable.

The recent Griffin/Stryker litigation shows that for multi‑state employers, outcomes may turn not only on what a restrictive covenant says, but also on forum selection, governing law, and the employer’s ability to prove protectable interests and irreparable harm early.

Background: Two Courts, Two Key Orders

After Griffin, an Oklahoma‑based sales representative, left employment with Stryker, a Michigan company, he filed a declaratory judgment action in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, seeking to invalidate the non-compete and other restrictive provisions that went beyond what Oklahoma law allows and were contrary to Oklahoma public policy. His contract with Stryker, however, contained a Michigan governing‑law clause and an exclusive Michigan forum‑selection clause stating that “any and all litigation … relating to this Agreement will take place exclusively in Michigan.”

• Order 1 (Oklahoma – Transfer)
  The Northern District of Oklahoma enforced the forum‑selection clause and transferred the case to Michigan. Griffin v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., No. 25‑CV‑302‑JFJ (N.D. Okla. Oct. 2, 2025) (Jayne, M.J.).
• Order 2 (Michigan – Preliminary Injunction)
  In Michigan, Stryker sued Griffin and obtained a preliminary injunction, stopping him from competing and using trade secrets. Stryker Emp. Co., LLC v. Griffin, No. 1:25‑cv‑950 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 2025) (Maloney, J.).

What the Oklahoma Transfer Order Teaches: A Mandatory Forum Clause Changes the Analysis

The Oklahoma court focused first on whether the forum clause was mandatory. It held the clause was clear and unequivocal because it used mandatory language (“will”) and an exclusivity term (“exclusively”). Once the clause was deemed valid and enforceable, the court applied the modified transfer framework for forum‑selection clauses and emphasized that only rare public‑interest considerations defeat transfer.

The court acknowledged Oklahoma’s strong policy against non-competes and said if the case stayed in Oklahoma, it would “likely” find the non‑competition/non‑solicitation provisions void. Nevertheless, it concluded that Oklahoma’s policy interest did not constitute the type of “exceptional circumstance” needed to override the parties’ mandatory Michigan forum selection, and it also referenced judicial interests against forum shopping and a race to the courthouse.

Lesson: For multi‑state employers, a forum‑selection clause written in unmistakably mandatory terms can be outcome‑determinative as to where the restrictive covenant dispute will be litigated.

What the Michigan Injunction Order Teaches: Protectable Interests, Plus Irreparable Harm Drive Early Relief

In Michigan, the court granted preliminary injunctive relief based on the verified complaint, the contract, and Stryker’s affidavit providing evidence of interests meriting protection. The court found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm absent an injunction. The harms it credited included loss of customer goodwill, unfair competition, and loss of control over confidential information/trade secrets—harms that are difficult to quantify and not fully compensable by money damages.

Lesson: The ability to present credible evidence of protectable interests (confidential information, customer relationships) and irreparable harm is often the difference between immediate injunctive relief and a slower merits fight.

Choice of Law: Why Oklahoma’s Strong Policy Didn’t Automatically Control in Michigan

Griffin argued to the Michigan court that it should apply Oklahoma law to the dispute, because Oklahoma had a materially greater interest in the outcome of the case, and Oklahoma law prohibits non-compete clauses. The court recognized that if Oklahoma law governed, it could undermine Stryker’s likelihood of success. But under Michigan’s approach to resolving the choice-of-law issue, it noted that the chosen law (here, Michigan law) generally applies unless applying it would violate a fundamental policy of a state with a materially greater interest in the issue (Oklahoma, as argued by Griffin).

Although Griffin stressed all of Oklahoma’s interests in the outcome of the dispute (e.g., he worked in Oklahoma, the employment agreement with Stryker was executed in Oklahoma, enforcement would affect Oklahoma), the court stated Griffin did not meaningfully address Michigan’s interests in the case and downplayed their significance. The court highlighted Michigan’s interests, including harm to a Michigan company (Stryker) and the value to Stryker of uniform interpretation of its employment contracts across jurisdictions around the country. At the preliminary injunction stage, the court treated the conflicts question as, at best for Griffin, a difficult issue without a clear answer—while describing Stryker’s position as well supported.

Practical Takeaways for Employers and Counsel

1. Oklahoma Employers: Draft to § 219A, not to “reasonableness.”

Oklahoma’s statute permits post‑employment competition and allows only the narrow restraint against direct solicitation of established customers; inconsistent provisions are void.

Drafting Takeaway: Avoid restrictions that function as “don’t work for competitors” clauses for Oklahoma employees.

2. Out‑of‑State Employers with Oklahoma Employees: Build a coordinated strategy.

The two orders illustrate a coordinated approach: (a) an exclusive forum clause enforced by transfer; and (b) early injunctive relief supported by confidential information/customer‑relationship evidence and irreparable harm proof.

3. Counsel: Treat conflicts briefing as interest‑balancing, not contact‑counting.

The Michigan order underscores that arguing “employee lived/worked in Oklahoma” is not the end of the analysis. You must also confront (or affirmatively develop) the employer home‑state interests the court weighs and deal with them appropriately.

For questions regarding this development, or any other employment and labor questions, please contact your GableGotwals attorney or a member of our Employment & Labor Group.

Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP
918-595-4810
cthrutchley@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

January 7, 2026 | By: Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP

Pendergraft v. Steiner (W.D. Okla. 2025) shows HR and managers what NOT to do in hiring, promotions, and handling employee complaints. The court allowed race, color, and age discrimination and retaliation claims to go forward against USPS because the employee alleged specific, fact-based flaws in USPS’s processes. The allegations (deemed by the Court to be true for purposes of assessing the defendants’ motion to dismiss) show the exact managerial missteps that result in costly claims.

Where Management Went Wrong

1. Inconsistent Hiring & Promotion Messaging

The employee said he was told he ranked #1 for jobs he applied for, but was rejected, while younger, less qualified internal candidates were chosen. Courts consider inconsistencies like these to be pretext, meaning management’s so-called non-discriminatory reasons for picking the less qualified candidates are unworthy of belief.

HR Next Steps:

• Standardize interview questions and evaluation processes
• Document that hiring managers followed the process and based decisions on relevant, job-related criteria
• Caution managers to be careful about what they say–casual comments about candidates can be used against them

2. Discouraging EEO or HR Contact

A supervisor allegedly warned the employee not to pursue an EEOC charge and suggested he could be fired if he did. The court treated this as classic retaliation.

HR Next Steps:

• Train supervisors on what constitutes legally protected activity that can result in retaliation claims
• Make it clear: no one should discourage reporting issues to the EEOC or management
• Require managers to notify HR immediately when a complaint is raised

3. Discipline Following Too Quickly After Complaints

After the employee contacted the EEOC, a manager allegedly confronted him in a hostile manner, resulting in an altercation. The employee was suspended and terminated. Timing of the confrontation alone helped the retaliation claim survive.

HR Next Steps:

• Review all proposed disciplinary actions, especially within 90 days of the protected activity
• Require justification for the action supported by contemporaneous documentation
• Slow down decision-making until HR verifies a legitimate basis unrelated to the protected activity

Pendergraft still has to prove his allegations to win the case. But his allegations were sufficiently specific to survive dismissal. And they provide several key lessons for HR and management.

For questions regarding this development, or any other employment and labor questions, please contact your GableGotwals attorney or a member of our Employment & Labor Group.

Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP
918-595-4810
cthrutchley@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

December 29, 2025 | By: Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP

If your company requires employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements (and you should), here’s a wake‑up call: if you (the employer) didn’t sign it, too, then it may not be worth the paper it’s printed on.

In a recent Fifth Circuit case, the court refused to enforce an arbitration agreement because the employer never signed it, even though the employees had. The agreement clearly required signatures from both sides — and that was the employer’s downfall. This decision (Mertens v. Benelux Corp.) underscores a simple but critical rule under Texas law: If your agreement requires signatures from both parties, you must actually sign it — or you may lose the right to compel arbitration. The Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that when the language and structure of the contract show both parties must sign, courts will hold employers to that requirement.

What Texas Employers Should Do Now

1. Review your arbitration agreements.
   If they include signature lines for both parties or language that says or implies both parties must sign, make sure you’re collecting all required signatures.
2. Don’t rely on “intent” or past practice.
   In Mertens, the employer argued it intended to enforce the agreement — but the court said the contract’s wording controlled, not after‑the‑fact explanations.
3. Train managers and HR teams on proper execution.
   A legally valid arbitration agreement is only as strong as your execution process.
4. When in doubt, get it signed.
   The Fifth Circuit has upheld unsigned agreements only when the contract did not require a signature block at all (as in Flores v. BJ’s Restaurant). But when your agreement expressly requires signatures? No signature = no enforcement.

Bottom Line

If you operate in Texas (or anywhere in the Fifth Circuit), don’t leave your arbitration agreements unsigned. Courts are taking the language of these agreements seriously — and employers who don’t are paying the price.

For questions regarding this development, or any other employment and labor questions, please contact your GableGotwals attorney or a member of our Employment & Labor Group.

Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP
918-595-4810
cthrutchley@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

November 25, 2025 | Crossover Scholarship Fund honored Chris Thrutchley with the Sam Rader Service Award at its 10th Annual “Restoring Our Community Banquet,” held on November 20. The annual banquet raises money for scholarships to help students attend Crossover Preparatory Academy and highlights the broader work of Crossover Community Impact in north Tulsa through various programs, such as Crossover Health Services.

Chris was the second annual recipient of the Sam Rader Service Award, which is presented to individuals who model exemplary service and go above and beyond to support Crossover’s mission, which is to restore north Tulsa through reconciliation, love, and justice. In recognition of his longstanding service to the organization, the award was first presented to and named after Sam Rader of the Coldwell Banker Rader Group following his retirement from the board of directors.

“Crossover does not accomplish what it’s accomplished in our community without people like Chris Thrutchley,” said Philip Abode, Executive Director of Crossover Preparatory Academy. “His sacrificial giving, his tireless advocacy, and his willingness to offer his legal expertise in service of Crossover’s mission to restore north Tulsa have made him an ideal board member and partner in this work. We will forever be thankful for Chris and all that he has helped Crossover accomplish.”

The event featured guest speakers, music, and dinner, bringing together supporters to highlight Crossover’s impact in areas such as education, housing, and community development. GableGotwals former intern, Reese Robinson, introduced the evening’s guest speaker. Reese previously worked part time at the Firm while attending Crossover Prep and is now completing his first semester at the University of Oklahoma. He plans to pursue medical school and return to north Tulsa through the new medical residency program supported by a recent $17 million city grant.

Chris Thrutchley is a Director and Shareholder at GableGotwals where he leads the firm’s employment and labor law practice group. Chris and his wife, Shannon, have supported Crossover since its inception in 2012. He serves on Crossover’s Board of Directors and has been actively involved in advancing its mission for more than a decade.

About GableGotwals

GableGotwals® is a full-service law firm with more than 100 attorneys and 70 other business professionals in Oklahoma and Texas. We represent a diversified client base across the nation, and our connections and reach are global. Fortune 500 corporations, privately owned companies, entrepreneurs, foundations, and individuals entrust us every day with the stewardship and strategic management of their legal challenges.

October 28, 2025 | Benchmark Litigation, a guide that provides analysis of commercial and financial litigators and law firms in the United States, named GableGotwals a “Highly Recommended” law firm for Dispute Resolution in Oklahoma.

In addition, 14 attorneys were recognized as 2026 “Litigation Stars,” six of whom were newly named. Two attorneys were newly recognized as 2026 “Future Stars,” and three were named to the Oklahoma “40 & Under List – South” for 2025.

Oklahoma 2026 Benchmark Litigation: Oklahoma Attorneys
Ellen A. Adams Oklahoma Future Star	David L. Bryant United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star Insurance, Securities, Environmental, Energy
Jeffrey A. Curran United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star	Craig A. Fitzgerald Oklahoma Litigation Star Insurance, Dispute Resolution, Energy
Amelia A. Fogleman United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star	Jake Krattiger Oklahoma, 40 & Under List – South (2025) Commercial, Energy
Lance Leffel Oklahoma Future Star	Justin A. Lollman Oklahoma, 40 & Under List – South (2025) Dispute Resolution
Graydon Dean Luthey, Jr. United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star Securities, Commercial, Native American, Energy	Robert G. McCampbell United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star
Nick Merkley United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star Competition/Antitrust, Product Liability, Energy	Barrett L. Powers Oklahoma, 40 & Under List – South (2025) Dispute Resolution
Rob F. Robertson United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star Product Liability and Recall, Commercial, Energy	Trent Shores United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star
Leasa M. Stewart Oklahoma Litigation Star Labor and Employment, Commercial	Amy M. Stipe United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star Insurance, Commercial, Oil and Gas
Sidney K. Swinson United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star	Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star
Jay P. Walters United States (National), Oklahoma Litigation Star

About GableGotwals
GableGotwals® is a full-service law firm with more than 100 attorneys and 70 other business professionals in Oklahoma and Texas. We represent a diversified client base across the nation, and our connections and reach are global. Fortune 500 corporations, privately owned companies, entrepreneurs, foundations, and individuals entrust us every day with the stewardship and strategic management of their legal challenges.