Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Delaney v. Taco Time International, Inc.green2 sentences2021Id. at 14 . 774 Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council To explain its holding, the court described its wrongful discharge cases to that point as falling into “three general categories”: (1) a case like Nees, which the court described as involving a plaintiff who “was discharged for fulfilling a societal obligation”; (2) cases in which the plain- tiff pursued a private statutory right, like Campbell and Brown, with the plaintiff in Brown establishing a wrongful discharge claim because the right pursued “related directly to the plaintiff’s role as an employee” and the statute “was legislati 2021Id. at 14 . 774 Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council To explain its holding, the court described its wrongful discharge cases to that point as falling into “three general categories”: (1) a case like Nees, which the court described as involving a plaintiff who “was discharged for fulfilling a societal obligation”; (2) cases in which the plain- tiff pursued a private statutory right, like Campbell and Brown, with the plaintiff in Brown establishing a wrongful discharge claim because the right pursued “related directly to the plaintiff’s role as an employee” and the statute “was legislati | 2 | 6 |
McQuary v. Bel Air Convalescent Home, Inc.green2 sentences2015McQuary, 69 Or App at 111-12 . 2006See 69 Or App at 111 n 5. | 2 | 3 |
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc.green2 sentences2025See Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 290 Or App 16, 28 , 415 P3d 55 (2018), aff’d, 365 Or 196 , 445 P3d 281 (2019) (noting previous cases in employment-re- taliation context that required proof that the employee’s protected activity was a substantial factor in the employer’s adverse decision); see also Estes v. Lewis and Clark College, 152 Or App 372, 381 , 954 P2d 792 , rev den, 327 Or 583 (1998) (articulating the same requirement for common-law wrongful-discharge claim). “[T]o be a substantial factor, the employer’s wrongful purpose must have been a factor that made a difference in the discharge decis 2025See Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 290 Or App 16, 28 , 415 P3d 55 (2018), aff’d, 365 Or 196 , 445 P3d 281 (2019) (noting previous cases in employment-re- taliation context that required proof that the employee’s protected activity was a substantial factor in the employer’s adverse decision); see also Estes v. Lewis and Clark College, 152 Or App 372, 381 , 954 P2d 792 , rev den, 327 Or 583 (1998) (articulating the same requirement for common-law wrongful-discharge claim). “[T]o be a substantial factor, the employer’s wrongful purpose must have been a factor that made a difference in the discharge decis | 2 | 2 |
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc.green2 sentences2025See Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 290 Or App 16, 28 , 415 P3d 55 (2018), aff’d, 365 Or 196 , 445 P3d 281 (2019) (noting previous cases in employment-re- taliation context that required proof that the employee’s protected activity was a substantial factor in the employer’s adverse decision); see also Estes v. Lewis and Clark College, 152 Or App 372, 381 , 954 P2d 792 , rev den, 327 Or 583 (1998) (articulating the same requirement for common-law wrongful-discharge claim). “[T]o be a substantial factor, the employer’s wrongful purpose must have been a factor that made a difference in the discharge decis 2025See Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 290 Or App 16, 28 , 415 P3d 55 (2018), aff’d, 365 Or 196 , 445 P3d 281 (2019) (noting previous cases in employment-re- taliation context that required proof that the employee’s protected activity was a substantial factor in the employer’s adverse decision); see also Estes v. Lewis and Clark College, 152 Or App 372, 381 , 954 P2d 792 , rev den, 327 Or 583 (1998) (articulating the same requirement for common-law wrongful-discharge claim). “[T]o be a substantial factor, the employer’s wrongful purpose must have been a factor that made a difference in the discharge decis | 2 | 2 |
Estes v. Lewis and Clark Collegegreen2 sentences2025See Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 290 Or App 16, 28 , 415 P3d 55 (2018), aff’d, 365 Or 196 , 445 P3d 281 (2019) (noting previous cases in employment-re- taliation context that required proof that the employee’s protected activity was a substantial factor in the employer’s adverse decision); see also Estes v. Lewis and Clark College, 152 Or App 372, 381 , 954 P2d 792 , rev den, 327 Or 583 (1998) (articulating the same requirement for common-law wrongful-discharge claim). “[T]o be a substantial factor, the employer’s wrongful purpose must have been a factor that made a difference in the discharge decis 2025See Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 290 Or App 16, 28 , 415 P3d 55 (2018), aff’d, 365 Or 196 , 445 P3d 281 (2019) (noting previous cases in employment-re- taliation context that required proof that the employee’s protected activity was a substantial factor in the employer’s adverse decision); see also Estes v. Lewis and Clark College, 152 Or App 372, 381 , 954 P2d 792 , rev den, 327 Or 583 (1998) (articulating the same requirement for common-law wrongful-discharge claim). “[T]o be a substantial factor, the employer’s wrongful purpose must have been a factor that made a difference in the discharge decis | 2 | 2 |
Holien v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.green2 sentences2020Compare Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l., 297 Or 10, 16 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (“[W]here an adequate existing remedy protects the inter- ests of society[,] * * * an additional remedy of wrongful dis- charge will not be accorded.”) with Holien v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 298 Or 76 , 689 P2d 1292 (1984) (an employee discharged for resisting sexual harassment may bring a wrongful discharge claim, “unless the provisions of ORS chapter 659 demonstrate the legislature’s intent not only to provide what it considered to be adequate remedies to an employe[e] such as plaintiff, but by implication show a legis- 2020Compare Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l., 297 Or 10, 16 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (“[W]here an adequate existing remedy protects the inter- ests of society[,] * * * an additional remedy of wrongful dis- charge will not be accorded.”) with Holien v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 298 Or 76 , 689 P2d 1292 (1984) (an employee discharged for resisting sexual harassment may bring a wrongful discharge claim, “unless the provisions of ORS chapter 659 demonstrate the legislature’s intent not only to provide what it considered to be adequate remedies to an employe[e] such as plaintiff, but by implication show a legis- | 1 | 7 |
Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp.green2 sentences2021Babick, 333 Or at 409 . 2020Cite as 305 Or App 288 (2020) 307 Our courts have recognized two bases for a wrong- ful discharge claim: (1) “when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy” and (2) “when the discharge is for fulfilling some import- ant public duty[.]” Babick, 333 Or at 407 (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Sheets v. Knightgreen2 sentences1993See Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or 220, 236 , 779 P2d 1000 (1989). *155 We agree only in part. 5 Plaintiffs allegations give rise to a reasonable inference that defendant, knowing that it had no reasonable basis for believing that plaintiff was involved in the theft of defendant’s drug inventory, initiated an accusation of theft, encouraged the sheriffs investigation of her and made a request that she be arrested, all because she was insisting that defendant comply with the administrative rules. 1992Stenbock also argues that the summary judgment was appropriate, because Christman was an at-will employee and because Stenbock was the officer who had the authority to hire and fire. 2 Stenbock argues that Christman, who does not assert a wrongful discharge claim against RMS, see Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or 320 , 779 P2d 1000 (1979), is using an intentional interference claim against him to camouflage his real target, which is RMS. | 1 | 3 |
Vergara v. Patelgreen2 sentences2021Nor do we understand ORS 659A.199—which defen- dant pointed to in the trial court and plaintiff contends was the basis for the trial court’s ruling—to provide a 5 “Our courts have recognized two bases for a wrongful discharge claim: (1) when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an import- ant public policy and (2) when the discharge is for fulfilling some important pub- lic duty.” Vergara, 305 Or App at 307 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 2020In Walsh, notwithstanding its acknowledgment that “the community has a strong interest in maintain- ing safe working conditions[,]” the court determined that the employee (a dockworker who had been discharged for Cite as 305 Or App 288 (2020) 303 complaining to his supervisors about workplace safety viola- tions) could not pursue a wrongful discharge claim, because he already had “a remedy under existing law for his wrong- ful discharge.” 278 Or at 351 . | 1 | 2 |
Love v. Polk County Fire Districtgreen2 sentences2021See also Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474, 486 , 149 P3d 199 (2006) (noting the “public duty” supporting a wrongful discharge claim “may be found through cases, statutes, rules, or constitutional provisions that either (1) specifically encourage or require a particular action or (2) otherwise demon- strate that such action enjoys high social value” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). 2021See also Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474, 486 , 149 P3d 199 (2006) (noting the “public duty” supporting a wrongful discharge claim “may be found through cases, statutes, rules, or constitutional provisions that either (1) specifically encourage or require a particular action or (2) otherwise demon- strate that such action enjoys high social value” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Westwood Corp., Developers & Contractors v. Bowengreen2 sentences2021See Westwood Corp. v. Bowen, 108 Or App 310, 318 , 815 P2d 1282 (1991) (rejecting similar challenge under Article VII (Amended), section 3; explaining that constitutional jury-trial provisions, pertaining to actions at law, do not apply to statutory claims tried as in equity to the court; and stating, “The court did not reexamine a finding in an action at law; it made a separate finding in an equi- table proceeding in which the jury’s finding enjoyed no con- stitutional insulation and to which its finding was legally irrelevant.”). 2021See Westwood Corp. v. Bowen, 108 Or App 310, 318 , 815 P2d 1282 (1991) (rejecting similar challenge under Article VII (Amended), section 3; explaining that constitutional jury-trial provisions, pertaining to actions at law, do not apply to statutory claims tried as in equity to the court; and stating, “The court did not reexamine a finding in an action at law; it made a separate finding in an equi- table proceeding in which the jury’s finding enjoyed no con- stitutional insulation and to which its finding was legally irrelevant.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2021In fact, even after Deatherage, we have contin- ued to recognize a common-law cause of action for wrong- ful discharge when “an employer discharges an employee for such a socially undesirable motive that the employer must respond in damages for any injury done,” Nees, 272 Or at 218 , but no statute provides an adequate statutory 496 Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC remedy.5 See, e.g., De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc., 244 Or App 443, 449-52 , 260 P3d 700 (2011) (reversing dismissal of common-law wrongful discharge claim alleging employer retaliated against employee for making complaints concern- ing 2021In fact, even after Deatherage, we have contin- ued to recognize a common-law cause of action for wrong- ful discharge when “an employer discharges an employee for such a socially undesirable motive that the employer must respond in damages for any injury done,” Nees, 272 Or at 218 , but no statute provides an adequate statutory 496 Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC remedy.5 See, e.g., De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc., 244 Or App 443, 449-52 , 260 P3d 700 (2011) (reversing dismissal of common-law wrongful discharge claim alleging employer retaliated against employee for making complaints concern- ing | 1 | 1 |
| Stupek v. Wyle Laboratories Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Sieverson v. Allied Stores Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Dymock v. Norwest Safety Protective Equipment for Oregon Industry, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Carlson v. Crater Lake Lumber Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Peterson v. Templegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rosboro Lumber Company v. Employee Benefits Insurance Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Employment Divisiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Delaware State College v. Ricksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nees v. Hocks
green
2 sentences2021In fact, even after Deatherage, we have contin- ued to recognize a common-law cause of action for wrong- ful discharge when “an employer discharges an employee for such a socially undesirable motive that the employer must respond in damages for any injury done,” Nees, 272 Or at 218 , but no statute provides an adequate statutory 496 Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC remedy.5 See, e.g., De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc., 244 Or App 443, 449-52 , 260 P3d 700 (2011) (reversing dismissal of common-law wrongful discharge claim alleging employer retaliated against employee for making complaints concern- ing 1998A wrongful-discharge claim has two elements: “[TJhere must be a discharge, and that discharge must be ‘wrongful.’ ” Moustachetti v. State of Oregon, 319 Or 319, 325 , 877 P2d 66 (1994), citing Nees v. Hocks, 212 Or 210, 218, 536 P2d 512 (1975). | 5 | 1992–2021 |
Walsh v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021First, in Walsh v. Consolidated Freightways, 278 Or 347, 352-53 , 563 P2d 1205 (1977), the court held that the plaintiff could not assert a wrongful discharge claim when a federal statute provided the plaintiff with full remedies for objecting to unsafe work- ing conditions, his claimed protected activity. 2021First, in Walsh v. Consolidated Freightways, 278 Or 347, 352-53 , 563 P2d 1205 (1977), the court held that the plaintiff could not assert a wrongful discharge claim when a federal statute provided the plaintiff with full remedies for objecting to unsafe work- ing conditions, his claimed protected activity. | 4 | 1989–2021 |
Brown v. Transcon Lines
green
2 sentences2021In Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978), the court recognized that an employer wrongfully discharges an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim, id. at 604 , and then analyzed whether a state statute that pro- vided some remedies precluded the plaintiff from pursuing a wrongful discharge claim. 2021In Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978), the court recognized that an employer wrongfully discharges an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim, id. at 604 , and then analyzed whether a state statute that pro- vided some remedies precluded the plaintiff from pursuing a wrongful discharge claim. | 3 | 1999–2021 |
Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council
green
2 sentences2021We agreed with the parties’ understanding that a violation of ORS 659A.203 can provide the basis for a wrongful-discharge claim, Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council, 299 Or App 432, 447 , 450 P3d 19 (2019), but we concluded that the trial court had erred in submitting the wrongful-discharge claim to the jury. 2021We agreed with the parties’ understanding that a violation of ORS 659A.203 can provide the basis for a wrongful-discharge claim, Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council, 299 Or App 432, 447 , 450 P3d 19 (2019), but we concluded that the trial court had erred in submitting the wrongful-discharge claim to the jury. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
McGanty v. Staudenraus
green
2 sentences2021Penney Co., 301 Or 117, 120-22 , 719 P2d 854 (1986), over- ruled in part on other grounds by McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or 532, 549 , 901 P2d 841 (1995) (affirming dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim after reviewing precedent and observing that the plaintiff did not allege that his personal relationship with another employee, which triggered his dis- charge, was in some way protected by statute or involved an interest of public importance). 2021Penney Co., 301 Or 117, 120-22 , 719 P2d 854 (1986), over- ruled in part on other grounds by McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or 532, 549 , 901 P2d 841 (1995) (affirming dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim after reviewing precedent and observing that the plaintiff did not allege that his personal relationship with another employee, which triggered his dis- charge, was in some way protected by statute or involved an interest of public importance). | 2 | 2009–2021 |
Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Under ORS 659A.203(1), a public employer may not “(b) Prohibit any employee from disclosing, or take or threaten to take disciplinary action against an employee for the disclosure of any information that the employee rea- sonably believes is evidence of: 778 Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council “(A) A violation of any federal or state law, rule or reg- ulation by the state, agency or political subdivision.” The statute thus explicitly protects the employment of pub- lic employees who report an employer’s “violation of any * * * law.” Id. 2012Id. at 638 . | 2 | 2012–2021 |
Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp.
green
2 sentences2002Id. 1999For purposes of simplicity, however, we refer only to a single complaint throughout this opinion. [2] See, e.g., Nees, 272 Or. at 216-19 , 536 P.2d 512 (serving on a jury); Delaney v. Taco Time Int'l., 297 Or. 10, 16 , 681 P.2d 114 (1984) (refusing to sign a false and potentially defamatory statement about a co-worker); Dalby v. Sisters of Providence, 125 Or.App. 149, 153 , 865 P.2d 391 (1993) (insisting that pharmacy employer comply with administrative rules governing drug inventory and record-keeping requirements); Banaitis, 129 Or.App. at 376-80 , 879 P.2d 1288 (refusing to disclose confide | 2 | 1999–2002 |
Moustachetti v. State of Oregon
green
2 sentences2000“The elements of a wrongful discharge claim are simple: there must be a discharge, and that discharge must be ‘wrongful.’ ” Moustachetti v. State of Oregon, 319 Or 319, 325 , 877 P2d 66 (1994). 2000“The elements of a wrongful discharge claim are simple: there must be a discharge, and that discharge must be ‘wrongful.’ ” Moustachetti v. State of Oregon, 319 Or 319, 325 , 877 P2d 66 (1994). | 2 | 1998–2000 |
Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd.
green
2 sentences1995She argues, however, that, notwithstanding her at-will status, her termination was wrongful because a substantial factor in defendant’s decision was “plaintiffs assertion of her employment related right to have an attorney at any time during any questioning by a law enforcement officer.” In Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd., 129 Or App 371, 376 , 879 P2d 1288 (1994), rev dismissed 321 Or 511 (1995), we recognized the two available grounds for a wrongful discharge claim: “In general, an employer may discharge an employee at any time, for any reason, unless doing so violates a contractual, statu 1995She argues, however, that, notwithstanding her at-will status, her termination was wrongful because a substantial factor in defendant’s decision was “plaintiffs assertion of her employment related right to have an attorney at any time during any questioning by a law enforcement officer.” In Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd., 129 Or App 371, 376 , 879 P2d 1288 (1994), rev dismissed 321 Or 511 (1995), we recognized the two available grounds for a wrongful discharge claim: “In general, an employer may discharge an employee at any time, for any reason, unless doing so violates a contractual, statu | 2 | 1995–1999 |
Kofoid v. Woodard Hotels, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990In Kofoid v. Woodard Hotels, Inc., 78 Or App 283 , 716 P2d 771 (1986), we affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim in which the plaintiff alleged that she was discharged on the basis of sex. 1990In Kofoid v. Woodard Hotels, Inc., 78 Or App 283 , 716 P2d 771 (1986), we affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim in which the plaintiff alleged that she was discharged on the basis of sex. | 2 | 1990–1994 |
Lucas v. Lake County
green
1 sentence2024Id. at 43 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Patton v. J. C. Penney Co.
green
2 sentences2021Penney Co., 301 Or 117, 120-22 , 719 P2d 854 (1986), over- ruled in part on other grounds by McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or 532, 549 , 901 P2d 841 (1995) (affirming dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim after reviewing precedent and observing that the plaintiff did not allege that his personal relationship with another employee, which triggered his dis- charge, was in some way protected by statute or involved an interest of public importance). 2021Penney Co., 301 Or 117, 120-22 , 719 P2d 854 (1986), over- ruled in part on other grounds by McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or 532, 549 , 901 P2d 841 (1995) (affirming dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim after reviewing precedent and observing that the plaintiff did not allege that his personal relationship with another employee, which triggered his dis- charge, was in some way protected by statute or involved an interest of public importance). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council
green
2 sentences2021Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council, 367 Or 761 , 484 P3d 1035 (2021). 2021Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council, 367 Or 761 , 484 P3d 1035 (2021). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kemp v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021In fact, even after Deatherage, we have contin- ued to recognize a common-law cause of action for wrong- ful discharge when “an employer discharges an employee for such a socially undesirable motive that the employer must respond in damages for any injury done,” Nees, 272 Or at 218 , but no statute provides an adequate statutory 496 Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC remedy.5 See, e.g., De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc., 244 Or App 443, 449-52 , 260 P3d 700 (2011) (reversing dismissal of common-law wrongful discharge claim alleging employer retaliated against employee for making complaints concern- ing 2021In fact, even after Deatherage, we have contin- ued to recognize a common-law cause of action for wrong- ful discharge when “an employer discharges an employee for such a socially undesirable motive that the employer must respond in damages for any injury done,” Nees, 272 Or at 218 , but no statute provides an adequate statutory 496 Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC remedy.5 See, e.g., De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc., 244 Or App 443, 449-52 , 260 P3d 700 (2011) (reversing dismissal of common-law wrongful discharge claim alleging employer retaliated against employee for making complaints concern- ing | 1 | 2021–2021 |
De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2021In fact, even after Deatherage, we have contin- ued to recognize a common-law cause of action for wrong- ful discharge when “an employer discharges an employee for such a socially undesirable motive that the employer must respond in damages for any injury done,” Nees, 272 Or at 218 , but no statute provides an adequate statutory 496 Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC remedy.5 See, e.g., De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc., 244 Or App 443, 449-52 , 260 P3d 700 (2011) (reversing dismissal of common-law wrongful discharge claim alleging employer retaliated against employee for making complaints concern- ing 2021In fact, even after Deatherage, we have contin- ued to recognize a common-law cause of action for wrong- ful discharge when “an employer discharges an employee for such a socially undesirable motive that the employer must respond in damages for any injury done,” Nees, 272 Or at 218 , but no statute provides an adequate statutory 496 Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC remedy.5 See, e.g., De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc., 244 Or App 443, 449-52 , 260 P3d 700 (2011) (reversing dismissal of common-law wrongful discharge claim alleging employer retaliated against employee for making complaints concern- ing | 1 | 2021–2021 |
McManus v. Auchincloss
green
2 sentences2021In fact, even after Deatherage, we have contin- ued to recognize a common-law cause of action for wrong- ful discharge when “an employer discharges an employee for such a socially undesirable motive that the employer must respond in damages for any injury done,” Nees, 272 Or at 218 , but no statute provides an adequate statutory 496 Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC remedy.5 See, e.g., De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc., 244 Or App 443, 449-52 , 260 P3d 700 (2011) (reversing dismissal of common-law wrongful discharge claim alleging employer retaliated against employee for making complaints concern- ing 2021In fact, even after Deatherage, we have contin- ued to recognize a common-law cause of action for wrong- ful discharge when “an employer discharges an employee for such a socially undesirable motive that the employer must respond in damages for any injury done,” Nees, 272 Or at 218 , but no statute provides an adequate statutory 496 Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC remedy.5 See, e.g., De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc., 244 Or App 443, 449-52 , 260 P3d 700 (2011) (reversing dismissal of common-law wrongful discharge claim alleging employer retaliated against employee for making complaints concern- ing | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Deatherage v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences2020Then, in Deatherage v. Johnson, 230 Or App 422 , 215 P3d 125 (2009), we considered whether an employee who had been fired in retaliation for reporting workplace safety violations to the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division may pursue a wrongful discharge claim. 2020Then, in Deatherage v. Johnson, 230 Or App 422 , 215 P3d 125 (2009), we considered whether an employee who had been fired in retaliation for reporting workplace safety violations to the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division may pursue a wrongful discharge claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Olsen v. Deschutes County
green
2 sentences2020First, in Olsen v. Deschutes County, 204 Or App 7 , 127 P3d 655 , rev den, 341 Or 80 (2006), we considered whether public employees who were fired for rais- ing concerns about safety violations at a respite care facil- ity may bring a wrongful discharge claim. 2020First, in Olsen v. Deschutes County, 204 Or App 7 , 127 P3d 655 , rev den, 341 Or 80 (2006), we considered whether public employees who were fired for rais- ing concerns about safety violations at a respite care facil- ity may bring a wrongful discharge claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Clemente v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Demings green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State Highway Commission v. Superbilt Manufacturing Co. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Seibel v. Liberty Homes, Inc. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Coulter v. Construction & General Laborers Union Local 320 green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Minnis v. Oregon Mutual Insurance green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Dalby v. Sisters of Providence green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Anderson v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Chardon v. Fernandez green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Mains v. II Morrow, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Bratcher v. Sky Chefs, Inc. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Wiggins v. Barrett & Associates, Inc. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Giordano v. Aerolift, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Madani v. Kendall Ford, Inc. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Windle, Adm'x v. Flinn green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Patton v. J. C. Penney Co. neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| McQuary v. Bel Air Convalescent Home, Inc. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.