June 9, 2026 | Congratulations to the GableGotwals attorneys recently recognized in the 2026 Top Attorneys guide by 405 Magazine. This marks the Firm’s seventh consecutive year to appear in the review.

The local guide to attorneys and practices was developed through extensive peer-review surveys conducted by Data Research. This year, 25 GableGotwals attorneys were highlighted in 14 practice areas:

Appellate Law

Gerard M. D’Emilio

Arbitration and Mediation

Jeff Curran (Legacy)

Banking and Financial

Jeffrey D. Hassell
Francesca A. Walentynowicz (Rising Star)

Business Law

Nathan H. Atkins
J. Blake Patton

Civil Law Litigation

Amy M. Stipe

Commercial Litigation

John M. “Jake” Krattiger

Eminent Domain

Scott Kiplinger

Energy, Oil and Gas

E. Talitha Ebrite
Rosa M. Garner (Rising Star)
Nick V. Merkley
Brooks A. Richardson
Rob F. Robertson

Government and Administrative

David R. Herber
Robert G. McCampbell (Legacy)

Insurance

Lance Leffel
Ashlyn M. Smith
Leasa M. Stewart

Labor and Employment

Ellen A. Adams

Land Use Environment

Tyler A. Self (Rising Star)
Tim Sowecke

Medical Malpractice Defense

Brian Blackstock
Zoe Butts Dowdell

Oil and Gas

Leo J. Portman

GableGotwals’ profile is featured in the June 2026 issue of 405 Magazine, beginning on page 65. The article is also available online.

March 20, 2026 | Plaintiffs tried to unwind our arbitration win in federal court. It didn’t work.

GableGotwals recently secured a significant victory in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where the court refused to vacate an employment arbitrator’s orders and dismissed the challenge with prejudice.

Here’s why this matters beyond a single case:

Our top-ranked employment law and litigation team has been working with a multi-state employer to strengthen and operationalize its mandatory employment arbitration program as part of a broader strategy to reduce the risk, cost, and disruption of employment claims. That strategy has been paying off, including in a recent arbitration of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims, where the arbitrator ordered the matter to remain strictly confidential.

An aggressive plaintiffs’ firm from Ohio then filed in federal court to attack that confidentiality order, arguing it violated the FLSA and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court rejected the attempt to undo the arbitrator’s rulings and closed the case for good.

Key takeaway: When thoughtfully designed and properly implemented, employment arbitration programs can be a powerful risk-management tool helping employers resolve disputes more efficiently. Arbitration can control costs and reduce the collateral business disruption that often comes with public litigation. And you can often maximize confidentiality of the dispute, thus averting PR nightmares.

Kudos to Chris Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP, Justin Lollman, and Amy Fogleman for their outstanding work securing this result.

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.

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 6, 2025 | Best Lawyers®, for the 15th consecutive year, announced the “Best Law Firms” rankings. GableGotwals is ranked in the 2026 list regionally in 55 practice areas. Firms in the “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise.

GableGotwals received the following rankings:

Metropolitan Tier 1

Oklahoma City

• Administrative / Regulatory Law
• Bet-the-Company Litigation
• Commercial Litigation
• Construction Law
• Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Energy Law
• Insurance Law
• Litigation – Banking & Finance
• Litigation – Environmental
• Litigation – Insurance
• Litigation – Real Estate
• Litigation – Securities
• Litigation – Trusts & Estates
• Oil & Gas Law
• Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Tulsa

• Appellate Practice
• Arbitration (NEW)
• Banking and Finance Law
• Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
• Bet-the-Company Litigation
• Commercial Litigation
• Copyright Law
• Corporate Law
• Energy Law
• Family Law
• Gaming Law
• Health Care Law
• Insurance Law
• Land Use & Zoning Law
• Litigation – Banking & Finance
• Litigation – Bankruptcy
• Litigation – ERISA
• Litigation – Patent
• Litigation – Real Estate
• Litigation – Trusts & Estates
• Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants (NEW)
• Mergers and Acquisitions Law
• Native American Law
• Natural Resources Law
• Oil & Gas Law
• Patent Law
• Real Estate Law
• Securities / Capital Markets Law
• Technology Law
• Trademark Law
• Trust & Estates Law

Metropolitan Tier 2

Oklahoma City

• Banking and Finance Law
• Corporate Governance Law
• Corporate Law
• Government Relations Practice
• Health Care Law
• Litigation – Bankruptcy
• Litigation – ERISA
• Litigation – Mergers & Acquisitions
• Litigation – Regulatory Enforcement (SEC, Telecom, Energy)
• Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Tulsa

• Corporate Compliance Law
• Corporate Governance Law
• Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
• Employment Law – Management
• Labor Law – Management
• Litigation – Environmental
• Litigation – First Amendment
• Litigation – Health Care
• Litigation – Insurance
• Litigation – Labor and Employment (NEW)
• Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants
• Mediation (NEW)
• Privacy and Data Security Law
• Securities Regulation

Metropolitan Tier 3

Houston

• Commercial Litigation

Oklahoma City

• Native American Law

Tulsa

• Litigation – Intellectual Property