at-will employment rule (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

at-will employment rule in Oregon

9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2015 0 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Delaney v. Taco Time International, Inc.green
or · 1984 · cited in 7 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1989–2015
2 sentences

2015Examples of such circumstances include: (1) when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy, see, e.g., Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978) (employee unlawfully discharged for filing workers’ compensation claim); or (2) when the discharge is for fulfilling some important public duty, see, e.g., Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, 297 Or 10 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (employee discharged for refusing to defame another employee); Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210 , 536 P2d 512 (1975) (employee discharged for serving on jury).” If a party brings a

2002In Delaney , this court summarized its case law regarding the circumstances in which an employer can be held liable for wrongful discharge as an exception to the at-will employment doctrine. 297 Or at 15-16 .

37
Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp.green
or · 2002 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2006–2015
2 sentences

2007Although Oregon generally follows the at-will employment rule, the discharge of an at-will employee “may be deemed ‘wrongful’ (and, therefore, actionable) under certain circumstances.” Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or 401, 407 , 40 P3d 1059 (2002).

2007Although Oregon generally follows the at-will employment rule, the discharge of an at-will employee “may be deemed ‘wrongful’ (and, therefore, actionable) under certain circumstances.” Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or 401, 407 , 40 P3d 1059 (2002).

13
Kaelon v. USF Reddaway, Inc.green
orctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002Finally, the dissent argues that, “because the conduct of firing plaintiff did not violate a statute, an administrative rule, a recognized rule of common law, or a recognized business or trade standard, and the motive for firing plaintiff also did not violate any standard derived from the above sources, the interference was not wrongful beyond the fact of the interference itself.” Id. at 236 (Edmonds, P. J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (emphasis in original).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Nees v. Hocks green
or · 1975
2 sentences

2015Examples of such circumstances include: (1) when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy, see, e.g., Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978) (employee unlawfully discharged for filing workers’ compensation claim); or (2) when the discharge is for fulfilling some important public duty, see, e.g., Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, 297 Or 10 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (employee discharged for refusing to defame another employee); Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210 , 536 P2d 512 (1975) (employee discharged for serving on jury).” If a party brings a

2015Examples of such circumstances include: (1) when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy, see, e.g., Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978) (employee unlawfully discharged for filing workers’ compensation claim); or (2) when the discharge is for fulfilling some important public duty, see, e.g., Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, 297 Or 10 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (employee discharged for refusing to defame another employee); Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210 , 536 P2d 512 (1975) (employee discharged for serving on jury).” If a party brings a

51989–2015
Brown v. Transcon Lines green
or · 1978
2 sentences

2015Examples of such circumstances include: (1) when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy, see, e.g., Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978) (employee unlawfully discharged for filing workers’ compensation claim); or (2) when the discharge is for fulfilling some important public duty, see, e.g., Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, 297 Or 10 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (employee discharged for refusing to defame another employee); Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210 , 536 P2d 512 (1975) (employee discharged for serving on jury).” If a party brings a

2015Examples of such circumstances include: (1) when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy, see, e.g., Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978) (employee unlawfully discharged for filing workers’ compensation claim); or (2) when the discharge is for fulfilling some important public duty, see, e.g., Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, 297 Or 10 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (employee discharged for refusing to defame another employee); Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210 , 536 P2d 512 (1975) (employee discharged for serving on jury).” If a party brings a

42002–2015
Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp. green
orctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2015Examples of such circumstances include: (1) when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy, see, e.g., Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978) (employee unlawfully discharged for filing workers’ compensation claim); or (2) when the discharge is for fulfilling some important public duty, see, e.g., Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, 297 Or 10 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (employee discharged for refusing to defame another employee); Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210 , 536 P2d 512 (1975) (employee discharged for serving on jury).” If a party brings a

2015Examples of such circumstances include: (1) when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy, see, e.g., Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978) (employee unlawfully discharged for filing workers’ compensation claim); or (2) when the discharge is for fulfilling some important public duty, see, e.g., Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, 297 Or 10 , 681 P2d 114 (1984) (employee discharged for refusing to defame another employee); Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210 , 536 P2d 512 (1975) (employee discharged for serving on jury).” If a party brings a

12015–2015
Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc. green
or · 2013
1 sentence

2013In particular, courts have disagreed whether it is reasonable to rely on an offer of at-will employment, which in turn affects whether an employer’s termination of an at-will employment agreement before the Cite as 353 Or 282 (2013) 291 employee begins working is actionable under a theory of promissory estoppel or fraudulent misrepresentation.

12013–2013
Love v. Polk County Fire District green
orctapp · 2006
2 sentences

2007In this case, plaintiffs wrongful discharge claim is predicated on the second exception, termination for “fulfilling some important public duty.” In determining whether plaintiffs employment was terminated because he fulfilled an important public duty, “[t]his court cannot create a public duty but must find one in constitutional or statutory provisions or case law.” Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474, 483 , 149 P3d 199 (2006) (quoting Eusterman v. Northwest Permanente, P.C., 204 Or App 224, 229-30 , 129 P3d 213 , rev den, 341 Or 579 (2006)).

2007In this case, plaintiffs wrongful discharge claim is predicated on the second exception, termination for “fulfilling some important public duty.” In determining whether plaintiffs employment was terminated because he fulfilled an important public duty, “[t]his court cannot create a public duty but must find one in constitutional or statutory provisions or case law.” Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474, 483 , 149 P3d 199 (2006) (quoting Eusterman v. Northwest Permanente, P.C., 204 Or App 224, 229-30 , 129 P3d 213 , rev den, 341 Or 579 (2006)).

12007–2007
Public Employees'ben. Bd. v. Oregon Health and Science University green
or · 2006
1 sentence

2007In this case, plaintiffs wrongful discharge claim is predicated on the second exception, termination for “fulfilling some important public duty.” In determining whether plaintiffs employment was terminated because he fulfilled an important public duty, “[t]his court cannot create a public duty but must find one in constitutional or statutory provisions or case law.” Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474, 483 , 149 P3d 199 (2006) (quoting Eusterman v. Northwest Permanente, P.C., 204 Or App 224, 229-30 , 129 P3d 213 , rev den, 341 Or 579 (2006)).

12007–2007
Eusterman v. Northwest Permanente, P.C. green
orctapp · 2006
2 sentences

2007In this case, plaintiffs wrongful discharge claim is predicated on the second exception, termination for “fulfilling some important public duty.” In determining whether plaintiffs employment was terminated because he fulfilled an important public duty, “[t]his court cannot create a public duty but must find one in constitutional or statutory provisions or case law.” Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474, 483 , 149 P3d 199 (2006) (quoting Eusterman v. Northwest Permanente, P.C., 204 Or App 224, 229-30 , 129 P3d 213 , rev den, 341 Or 579 (2006)).

2007In this case, plaintiffs wrongful discharge claim is predicated on the second exception, termination for “fulfilling some important public duty.” In determining whether plaintiffs employment was terminated because he fulfilled an important public duty, “[t]his court cannot create a public duty but must find one in constitutional or statutory provisions or case law.” Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474, 483 , 149 P3d 199 (2006) (quoting Eusterman v. Northwest Permanente, P.C., 204 Or App 224, 229-30 , 129 P3d 213 , rev den, 341 Or 579 (2006)).

12007–2007

Where else courts name it

PA 55 (1985–2025) MO 42 (1985–2021) TX 38 (1987–2025) OH 33 (1989–2026) CA 26 (1991–2021) WA 22 (2001–2026) MI 21 (1993–2025) CT 18 (1980–2021) OK 18 (1987–2025) NY 18 (1982–2025) IL 17 (1981–2025) SC 17 (1994–2019) NC 17 (1998–2025) IA 16 (2000–2025) DC 15 (1989–2013) MA 13 (1992–2014) CO 12 (1991–2026) NE 11 (2001–2025) WV 10 (2000–2023) TN 10 (1996–2010) NV 10 (1984–2009) OR 9 (1989–2015) NM 9 (1993–2016) IN 8 (1986–2020) MN 8 (1987–2014) UT 8 (1991–2015) WY 7 (1997–2024) MS 7 (2005–2024) KS 6 (1998–2019) ID 6 (1996–2015) AR 5 (1997–2026) WI 5 (2000–2020) MD 4 (2001–2017) FL 4 (1989–2009) VA 4 (1993–2008) DE 4 (2002–2025) SD 4 (1993–2024) NJ 3 (1980–2022) HI 3 (1996–2002) ND 3 (1999–2021) AK 2 (1989–2001) LA 2 (2003–2016) GA 2 (2004–2012) AL 2 (1998–2000)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check