An employee is sometimes protected against retailiation for making reports of improper company conduct or improper conduct by another employee. While other laws pertaining to discrimination or retaliation may also apply, the key question in these cases is what constitutes whistleblowing. In Oregon, an employee may be protected for reporting either internally (within the company) or externally (for example to a government agency) a matter involving the company or conduct within the company that the employee believes is illegal. “Illegal” means that a law or agency regulation is being violated, or at least that the employee believes is being violated. (more…)

I usually do not find opinions where the plaintiff and defense bar were presumably arguing the same basic position. But there is such a recent Oregon Supreme Court Opinion.

In Patton v. Target Corporation, Plaintiff alleged that he was demoted then fired by Target (more…)

The Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion on August 5, 2010 that a first year high school teacher who had been told that he would be discharged if he did not resign, and who subsequently quit, quit for good cause. Therefore he was entitled to unemployment. The case is McDowell v. Employment Dept., and a copy of the opinion can be found at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S056569.htm.  In this particular (more…)

Feel free to become a fan of the office (or "like" us) on Facebook.

Schrock Law Office PC

Promote Your Page Too

There is an unpublished opinion by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed May 18, 2010 shooting down defendant’s attempt to avoid the plaintiff in that action from proceeding on his wage claim lawsuit in Oregon. Steve Sawyer vs. Market America, Inc., http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/unpub/090922-1.pdf

(more…)

I have prepared a general wage claim article (under Oregon law) that is available at this link:  http://www.time4payroll.com/9Llaw.html

While the Oregon legislature has severely restricted the use of noncompetition agreements in the employment context, under a law adopted effective January 1, 2008 (ORS 653.295), the law now specifically states that the restrictions do not apply to agreements “not to solicit employees of the employer or solicit or transact business with customers of the employer.” An employer is still entitled to enter into an enforceable non-solicitation agreement with an employee under Oregon law. Further, the restrictions upon the use and enforceability of noncompetition agreements do not limit the employer’s ability to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with the employee. The foregoing is for informational purposes, and should not be considered legal advice.

Effective January 1, 2008, the Oregon legislature significantly restricted the use of arbitration agreements in the employment context. In order for an arbitration agreement to be enforceable against an employee, the employer must inform the employee in a written employment offer received by the employee that an arbitration agreement is required (more…)

On May 15, 2008 the Oregon Supreme Court published an opinion in the case Gafur v. Legacy Mount Hood Health Center, in which it held that employees did not have a private right of action to sue for missed rest periods. The case only considered Oregon law, and not federal law. The plaintiffs in the case, which was dismissed by the trial court, alleged that they were not provided with required rest periods by Legacy, their employer. They sued for wages for the missed break periods, and penalty wages. Under Oregon law, non-exempt employees must be provided with a rest period of not less than ten minutes for every four hours worked, with some very limited exception. OAR 839-020-0050 (1)(b). The parties in the Gafur case stipulated that plaintiffs were paid the normal wage rate for each four hours of work.

The Oregon Supreme Court held that although the employers were required to provide the referenced breaks, the employees could not sue for additional wages for missed lunch breaks.

The case should not provide too much solice to employers, however. Even if failure to provide rest breaks were the only wage violation, employees can still make a complaint with BOLI. BOLI can issue a fine for up to $1000 for each rest break violation. ORS 653.261(1). Additionally, BOLI is authorized to seek criminal prosecution for wilfull violation of the rules. ORS 653.991.

Under both Oregon and Federal Law an Employer is obligated to pay overtime wages to non-exempt employeees.

In general, overtime is calculated based upon the work week (which also is defined under Oregon law), or the hours worked in a day over a certain amount. Overtime claims are fact-specific, and should be evaluated with an attorney.  Both federal and state law exempt certain classifications of employees from the overtime rules. If an employer had illegally failed to pay overtime an employee is entitled to recover the unpaid wages, statutory penalties and attorney fees.