The Oklahoma Bar Journal August 2025

L abor & E mployment

Stuff I Learned in 30 Years of Employment Law By Jim T. Priest

I REMEMBER, AS A FIRST-YEAR LAWYER, sitting in the office of one of my senior partners and asking, “How did you get started in this area of the law?” He shook his head, shrugged his shoulders and said, “It just sorta happened.” My internal reaction was, I didn’t want that to be my story. I wanted to make a conscious choice about my area of practice. But despite that inner vow, my entrance into the practice of employment law “just sorta happened.”

Law Of Wrongful Discharge,” and as a result of that article, I was invited to speak at one of the first OBA Law of the Workplace CLEs. I became the organizer and mod erator of the annual Law of the Workplace program for the next 25 years. With that exposure, people assumed I knew something about the newly emerging area of employ ment law (which Justice Opala always reminded me was not the same as “Labor Law”). I received phone calls, referrals and invitations to speak. But inside, I knew how little I knew and felt I was always just one step ahead, like a professor struggling to teach a class for the first time. No one in our growing law firm practiced in this area, so it fell to me to learn and build that practice area. It was an exciting time, and it “just sorta happened.” I provide this personal history as a backdrop to the lessons I learned in 30-plus years of prac ticing employment law. I hope

down by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The 1987 opinion of Hinson v. Cameron , authored by Justice Marian Opala, became my springboard to a 30-year career practicing employment and civil rights law. Justice Opala discussed a vari ety of theories under which an employee might bring a wrong ful discharge cause of action in the “at-will” state of Oklahoma. The at-will doctrine held sway in Oklahoma for decades and, technically, still does: All employ ees without a written contract of employment were considered “at will” and could be fired for good reason, bad reason or no reason. I would later describe this doctrine as Swiss cheese. It was mostly true, just as Swiss cheese is mostly cheese, but both had lots of holes. The Hinson opinion fasci nated me so much that I wrote an Oklahoma Bar Journal article titled “The Wake Of Hinson v. Cameron: Choppy Waters For The

As a young lawyer, I started out doing insurance defense work. As the low man on the law firm “totem pole,” I did whatever else drifted down the chain of com mand. I wrote wills, handled a few divorces, carried my mentor’s briefcase and was given the chore of overseeing 75 small subrogation cases. Then, like a lifesaver tossed to a drowning swimmer, I was asked to help defend three police misconduct civil rights cases. My life and legal practice were ener gized. I liked this work, and some of those cases involved questions about the employment of police officers. Soon, I was giving advice to cities and police chiefs about training, discipline, termination and commendation of police officers. I found myself practicing a very basic form of employment law, although, at the time, I don’t recall anyone using that term. A few years thereafter, an employment case was handed

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

20 | AUGUST 2025

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL