[spunkets]

"In fact, the best proof that the employer was doing something not only legal, but within their rights, is the fact that in order to stop the employer from continuing to do what they were doing, the legislature had to make it illegal. "

Nope. The legislature recognized that the employee's rights were being violated. I already outlined it and the legislature's floor commentary I'm sure affirms it. Laws like this are created, because the rights violations are recognized first. Folks don't make laws and then say, "Oh look, here's a new law that defines some new rights violation."

"It means that what was done WAS LEGAL IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD."I posted a link to a relevant analysis above and considerable comment on how the facts of this case fit the following test.

Henry Perritt Jr., one of this country's foremost scholars on labor and employment law, advocates a comprehensive test for analyzing wrongful discharge claims involving violations of public policy. Perritt proposes four elements of a public policy tort case:

(1) The plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element). Henry H. Perritt Jr., Workplace Torts: Rights and Liabilities § 3.7 (1991) (hereinafter Perritt).

(2) The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element). Perritt § 3.14.

(3) The plaintiffs must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element). Perritt § 3.19.

(4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of justification element). Perritt § 3.21. See also Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 69-70, 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995) (adopting Perritt's four element test).

The employer could have been sued for wrongful termination. The legislature created the law as above and to releive the citizens of OK from similar attempts by employers to usurp their rights.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The legislature is wrong, and it is neither the first time, nor the last time that a legislature has gotten things wrong.

If this legislation holds up, the very same people advocating the violation of an employer's rights to his own property, will be in here bitching about the lost jobs when Weyerhauser moved their plant to Mexico.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The employer was not sued for wrongful termination because there weren't grounds for the lawsuit.

The legislature acted out of self-preservation to accommodate its constituency, they will now blame the Court system for their law being rightfully overturned.

The rights of property owners all over Oklahoma will be violated if the legislation becomes law...

"Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan

But you statists will never quite come to understand that.