## Facts

- Dillard’s elected to become a “qualified employer” under the Oklahoma Employee Injury Benefit Act, allowing it to provide an alternative workplace-injury benefit plan instead of participating in the state workers’ compensation system.
- The statute permitted qualified employers to set plan terms that could diverge from the general workers’ compensation law, including defining covered injuries and imposing different claim procedures and limitations.
- Jonnie Yvonne Vasquez, a Dillard’s employee, injured her neck and shoulder while lifting shoe boxes at work.
- Vasquez sought benefits under Dillard’s plan; the claim was denied.
- Vasquez pursued relief before the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission; after a federal-court remand, the Commission en banc declared the statute inoperable on multiple constitutional grounds.
- Dillard’s sought review in the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Oklahoma Employee Injury Benefit Act is an unconstitutional special law under Okla. Const. art. 5, § 59 because it creates disparate treatment among injured workers based solely on whether their employer opted out of the general workers’ compensation system.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court held the Opt Out Act was an unconstitutional special law under Okla. Const. art. 5, § 59.
- The Court determined the relevant class for the special-law analysis was injured workers seeking compensation for work-related injuries, not employers.
- The Court concluded the Act produced unequal treatment because similarly situated injured employees could receive different substantive rights and benefits depending solely on their employer’s status as a qualified employer and the employer’s chosen plan terms.
- The Court vacated the Commission’s order and remanded, resolving the case on the special-law ground without reaching other constitutional theories.

## Legal Principles

- Under Okla. Const. art. 5, § 59, laws of a general nature must operate uniformly; a statute is an impermissible special law when it creates an arbitrary class and a general law could apply.
- In evaluating special-law challenges, courts identify the class whose rights and remedies are directly affected; formal statutory focus on employers does not control if employees bear the disparate impact.
- A workers’ compensation scheme that allows employer-by-employer substantive departures (e.g., coverage definitions, benefits, notice, and limitations) can create constitutionally impermissible disparate treatment among injured workers.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation opt-out statute as a prohibited special law because it authorized different substantive compensation regimes for similarly situated injured workers based solely on their employer’s election, contrary to the constitutional requirement of uniform operation for laws of a general nature.


Vasquez v. Dillard’s, Inc., 381 P.3d 768 (Okla. 2016)