Discrimination for initiating or aiding in criminal or civil proceedings prohibited
- remedies not exclusive
Source:
Section 659A.230 — Discrimination for initiating or aiding in criminal or civil proceedings prohibited; remedies not exclusive, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors659A.html.
Notes of Decisions
To be protected for reporting criminal activity, employee must believe that subject matter of report involves criminal conduct at time that report is made. Roberts v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co., 242 Or App 474, 255 P3d 628 (2011), Sup Ct review denied
To establish prima facie case of retaliation, plaintiff must establish that (1) plaintiff engaged in protected activity; (2) plaintiff suffered adverse employment decision; and (3) there is a causal link between protected activity and adverse employment decision. Neighorn v. Quest Health Care, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Or. 2012)
To establish causation between protected activity and adverse employment decision, plaintiff must establish that protected activity was substantial factor in motivating employer’s decision. Larmanger v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Or. 2012)
Where plaintiff, employed by defendant as in-home personal assistant who performed domestic and other tasks for defendant, reported defendant’s possession and display of child pornography to law enforcement and assisted in investigation resulting in defendant’s conviction, was fired from employment, plaintiff was not required to show plaintiff met definition of employee in ORS 659A.001 to prevail on claim for wrongful discharge for plaintiff’s fulfillment of important public duty. McManus v. Auchincloss, 271 Or App 765, 353 P3d 17 (2015), Sup Ct review denied
Under plain meaning of this section, former employee cannot bring claim as “employee.” Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2017)
Up to date