The Oklahoma State Insurance Fund (SIF) hired the consulting firm of Alexander & Alexander to review the SIF’s operations and recommend a reorganization plan. Ultimately, the consultants recommended a reduction in force of 145 employees and the outsourcing of some of the SIF’s functions. Some seven state employees who lost their jobs in the SIF filed suit against the state, alleging that the real reason they were selected for termination was their report that an SIF employee working on the reorganization had taken kickbacks from vendors who hoped to participate in the outsourcing part of the plan. The state of Oklahoma had a whistleblower statute that protected public employees who reported “mismanagement” to the state’s civil service agency. The seven plaintiffs in this case admitted that they had not availed themselves of this statute, but had limited their alleged whistleblowing activities to reporting their suspicions internally to other SIF employees. Consequently, it was undisputed that they could not avail themselves of the protections of the state statute. Furthermore, the statute did not define what was encompassed by the term mismanagement.

Based on these facts, should the courts accord the plaintiffs a common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge? If so, under which of the three major theories of common-law wrongful dismissal should they be permitted to proceed? See Barker v. State Insurance Fund, 2001 WL 1383604 (Okla.

Supreme).