May 5, 2026 | By: Ellen A. Adams and Trisha E. Bunce

Oklahoma has passed HB 3127, updating its Medical Marijuana and Patient Protection Act (Okla. Stat. Tit. 63, § 427.8) effective November 1, 2026. The changes matter in two practical ways:

1. They reframe how employers designate “safety-sensitive” positions; and
2. They expand when an employer may rely on a positive marijuana test to take adverse action against applicants and employees.

If you have Oklahoma operations, this is the right time to revisit your safety-sensitive positions and drug-testing framework. You should prepare now to provide the requisite 10-day notice of policy changes in the Oklahoma Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act (Okla. Stat. Tit. 40, § 551 et seq.) well before the effective date of the new rules.

There’s also an important federal backdrop that employers must consider in responding to the enactment of HB 3127. The Department of Justice has acted on Executive Order 14370, and issued a final rule, reclassifying cannabis and cannabis containing products covered by a state medical marijuana license, from Schedule I to Schedule III. While the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) has not changed its rules yet, employers are encouraged to keep following DOT guidance and regulations for potential changes. Because Schedule III drugs are not “illegal” per se, policies prohibiting “illegal” drugs may create ambiguity. Further, depending on the facts, because medical marijuana licensed under state law is no longer categorically “illegal” under federal law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (the “ADA”), may require accommodation unless that accommodation would result in “undue hardship” or the accommodation would pose a “direct threat” – both legal terms of art requiring detailed analysis.

On safety-sensitive roles, Oklahoma’s amendment moves away from the old “reasonable belief” approach and uses an example-based list that still gives employers some room to designate similar jobs as safety-sensitive. Once you designate a job as safety-sensitive, Oklahoma law allows a zero-tolerance approach: you may take adverse action based on a positive marijuana test even if the applicant or employee has a medical marijuana license. That said, you still need to account for the federal reclassification and the ADA when deciding what action to take in a particular situation, and DOT rules continue to control for DOT-regulated roles.

Outside safety-sensitive roles, Oklahoma’s amendment also broadens when you can act on a positive test. You may take action if the person doesn’t have a valid medical marijuana license; if a licensee possesses, uses, or is under the influence at work or while performing job duties; or (this is the notable change) if your action is based on a written policy that complies with the Oklahoma Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act. In practice, a compliant policy lets you rely on a positive marijuana test even for non-safety-sensitive positions under Oklahoma law. Given the federal shift to Schedule III, however, it’s wise to think carefully about which roles you test and why, and to consult experienced employment counsel before you finalize your approach.

What should employers do between now and November 1, 2026?

• Identify all positions subject to DOT regulations;
• Reevaluate which roles you will treat as safety-sensitive and make sure they align with the statute’s amendments;
• Consider which jobs could create a “direct threat” if someone is under the influence of medical marijuana and document your analysis;
• Decide where, when, and why you will test for marijuana based on your business objectives;
• Update your written testing policy so it complies with the Oklahoma Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act (Okla. Stat. Tit. 40, § 551 et seq.);
• Review and tighten policy language that bans “illegal drugs” to avoid ambiguity;
• Determine how you will administer a zero-tolerance policy for safety-sensitive roles;
• Refresh HR guidance and supervisor training on the interactive process and disability accommodations to address the federal reclassification of medical marijuana products licensed under Oklahoma state law;
• Consult with your experienced employment counsel to align state and federal requirements with your goals; and
• Develop a communication plan to announce and explain upcoming policy changes to employees.

GableGotwals’ Labor & Employment attorneys are well-versed in recent developments regarding the state-sanctioned marijuana industry and how those developments impact employers. If you need help in any of these areas, please contact any GableGotwals Labor & Employment attorney.

Ellen A. Adams
405-235-5520
eadams@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.

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.

Secured a significant appellate win on behalf of a client in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, which affirmed a trial court order confirming an arbitration award and held that the mandatory venue provision in Section 171.096(c) of the Texas Arbitration Act applies to confirmation proceedings involving arbitrations otherwise governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.

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 15, 2026 | By: Steven G. Heinen

Hiring decisions carry significant risks. A poor fit can lead to lost time, increased costs, and disruption to culture and operations. At the same time, the recruiting landscape continues to evolve, with talent shortages, faster hiring cycles, and increased reliance on data-driven recruiting tools.

Key Considerations for Employers

First, organizations should clearly define their needs before engaging a firm. This includes understanding the type of role being filled, the urgency of the hire, internal recruiting capacity, budget parameters, and confidentiality concerns. Establishing these factors early allows for more effective alignment with external partners.

Second, employers should closely evaluate a firm’s expertise and process. Relevant industry experience, demonstrated performance metrics such as fill rates and retention rates, sourcing strategies, candidate experience, and compliance practices all provide insight into whether a firm can deliver consistent and positive results.

Finally, the relationship itself matters. Fee structures, communication expectations, transparency, and who actually conducts the search should all be clearly understood. Strong partnerships are marked by responsiveness, clear reporting, and shared accountability.

Bottom Line

Selecting a search firm or staffing agency should be a structured and productive decision, not a reactive one. Using a clear evaluation framework helps organizations reduce risk, improve hiring outcomes, and build long-term recruiting partnerships that align with business goals.

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

Steven G. Heinen
918-595-4869
sheinen@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.