Skip to main content

Oklahoma Goodwill Industries, Inc. v. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission

OKLAJuly 7, 2009No. 102,539Cited 2 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Edmondson, Watt, Winchester, Colbert, Reif, Taylor, Hargrave, Opala, Kauger
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Goodwill Industries is exempt from paying unemployment taxes on individuals participating in rehabilitation and remunerative work programs at federal and state facilities pursuant to 40 O.S. § 1-210(7)(d), reversing the Employment Security Commission's determination.

What This Ruling Means

# Oklahoma Goodwill Industries v. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission ## What Happened Oklahoma Goodwill Industries operated rehabilitation and work programs for individuals with disabilities at federal and state facilities. The state's Employment Security Commission said Goodwill owed unemployment insurance taxes on participants in these programs. Goodwill disagreed, claiming it should be exempt from paying these taxes. ## What the Court Decided Oklahoma's Supreme Court sided with Goodwill Industries. The court ruled that Goodwill was legally exempt from paying unemployment taxes for people in their rehabilitation and remunerative work programs, based on state law. This reversed the Employment Security Commission's earlier decision requiring payment. ## Why This Matters for Workers This ruling clarifies how unemployment insurance rules apply to rehabilitation programs for people with disabilities. While participants in these programs don't generate unemployment tax obligations for Goodwill, workers should understand that participation in such programs may affect their eligibility for other unemployment benefits. Workers involved in these programs should ask about how their participation impacts their rights to unemployment coverage if they lose employment.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

BAUGHMAN
OKLASep 2025

¶0 Plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging she was terminated because of her mental and physical disabilities. Her sole legal claim was for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the common law claim was prohibited/preempted by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. The trial judge granted the motion. Plaintiff then moved to vacate the summary judgment order. Subsequently, the original judge issued an order disqualifying herself. Thereafter, the newly assigned judge granted Plaintiff's motion to vacate the order sustaining summary adjudication. Defendants appealed the order vacating summary judgment, an interlocutory order appealable by right. We retained the appeal and now reverse, remanding with instructions to reinstate the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

Mixed Result
OBI HOLDING COMPANY v. SCHULTZ-BUTZBACH AND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
OKLASep 2025

¶0 Employer moved to dismiss Employee's claim pursuant to 85A O.S. § 69 (A)(4)(b) after Employee did not receive or seek medical benefits for a period of nine months. Administrative Law Judge denied Employer's motion to dismiss, and the Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed. We retained the matter for disposition and reverse the order of the Workers' Compensation Commission.

Defendant Win
Agrawal
OKLAOct 2015
Defendant Win
AGRAWAL
OKLAOct 2015
Defendant Win
OKLAHOMA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOC. v. OKLAHOMA MILITARY DEPT.
OKLAJun 2014
Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.