In the most clear cut cases of whistleblowing (using Oregon law as an example), an employee may be terminated shortly after reporting conduct that they believe violates employment laws. In a recent case handled by our office for example, shortly after an employee filed a written complaint with Human Resources of a large company alleging that a manager had made discriminatory statements, the company initiated an investigation. Within days of the investigation concluding, the employee was fired. That employee received a significant settlement.

A whistleblowing lawsuit can be a great weapon for an employee, and a great challenge for the employer facing such a claim.

The Porltand Shookookai, the Japan America Society of Oregon, the Beaverton Sister City program and others locallyhave set up and are participating in the Oregon Japan Relief Fund. Please follow the link below:

http://www.mercycorps.org/fundraising/oregonjapanrelieffund

I will consider adding other organizations to this post.

In Patton v. Target Corporation, Plaintiff alleged that he was demoted then fired by Target because of his service in the national guard, and asserted both federal and state claims. The jury found in Target’s favor on the federal claim, but found that Target violated the law on the state law claim, and awarded $85,000 in compensatory damages, and $900,000 in punitive damages. The parties settled the case prior to entry of judgment, and a stipulated judgment was entered pursuant to the settlement.

Normally, 60% of a punitive damage award goes to the state. The State of Oregon intervened in the action, essentially claiming that it had prejudgment creditor status based upon the jury verdict, and that a settlement could not be approved without Oregon’s consent. The court examined the language and legislative history of ORS 31.735 (1), and concluded that the state did not have any such legal status under the language of the statute. So, for now, such post-verdict settlements are possible in Oregon under this opinion.

case the employee had been advised by his union representative that the school board will always approve such a recommendation of discharge. The teacher was in the probationary period, could be discharged for any reason, and had no predismissal right to a hearing.

Under the rules (OAR)  existing at the time, a resignation to avoid a discharge for misconduct or potential misconduct would disqualify a claimant. The discharge in this case involved the teacher showing some movie clips involving profanity as part of a teaching exercise about the improper use of language. However, the showing was done without prior approval, allegedly violating an unwritten “policy” of the school. The record was clear, the court concluded, that the discharge, if it had occurred, was not for misconduct because the teacher knew nothing about any such policy.

The court found also that the teacher had good reason to believe that any firing on his record could be, essentially,  the “kiss of death” to reemployment.

The case underscores that employees should be cautious of the “resign or be fired” scenario with respect to unemployment benefits. However, in this case, the Supreme Court declared that a quit to avoid a firing under such circumstances was for good cause.

The social commentary is also interesting. In my view, any legitimate public high school should not be hyper-restrictive about allowing profanity as part of an appropriate teaching lesson. If any parent or school official believes that the students in high school are not well exposed to profanity, then they are sadly deluded.

Schrock Law Office PC

Promote Your Page Too

In this case, the employer argued that the employee (who performed duties in Oregon) could not recover under North Carolina’s Wage Claim Act. The court agreed. The court agreed, a decision affirmed on appeal. Mr. Sawyer then filed suit in Oregon, using Oregon’s powerful wage claim statutes, and asked the court to stay (or put on hold) his contract claim in North Carolina to allow the Oregon wage claim action to proceed. The court did stay the North Carolina action. The defendant then appealed that order, and asked that the plaintiff be prevented from pursuing the Oregon action. However, the trial court’s order was affirmed. Thus, the plaintiff may pursue the wage claim action in Oregon.