distinct different complaints to different members of defendants management at different times can support both a retaliation claim under the floor osh protection for reporting workplace safety violations as well as a separate wrongful discharge claim under the common law for opposing a public health risk and the key thing in that analysis is to recognize the different complaints that my client made the court the lower court erred by making it one  reported by ransoms testimony and transcends testimony three distinct complaints made in the work area itself those complaints are about the health and risk to himself and his coworkers complain critical to recognize that the hospital is being remodeled and operating at the same time the weenie that is being remodeled for the especially is disturbed is partitioned off and the rest of the hospital that is operating includes a baby ward of the baby ward directly above the work area mr ransome's complaint as directed through the risks to the baby ward in the very reason yes well the lower court found in this case that it's limited to equitable relief that there is no company coming along and i am ask you have a well certainly they could yes obviously  there is not i do not know of a face directly on point in interest reading the full rest of remedy available under six fifty four six two i believe that's an answer to the answer to your question to as determined by the court or it can be a legislative intent to preempt the law and i think hold meaning sharky say that actually the walsh analysis of there being an adequate remedy really is determined by looking at the legislative intent and so i think where is very good presents it as there are two tests i think the proper analysis is presented by holding and sharkey don't believe in news particular case the court house to determine whether walsh is still good law or not because factually we have the distinctive complaints actually it's not a single complaint where you have to determine whether that complaint has an adequate remedy under six fifty four not in this case there are distinctly different complaints made at different times to different members of management regarding different qualities of the public created by the same thing well but not you know not this is critical i think if you recognise that the nature of the complaint is people are tracking it from the work area into the public area so that the basis of the public complaint isn't simply oh we have a spencer's in the work area cordoned off from the public an isolated imposing no harm to them that is a separate complaint not only do we have a specialist in working posing a risk to myself and my coworkers but we also have that being tracked through the operating portion of the hospital into the floor above us and exposing the babies in that  to that risk so there is an additional quality to the complaint that the wrongful discharge claim is based upon we don't have to in this case address what i think is a legitimate concern regarding some other cases look to whether there are statutes common law regulations that indicate important public policy and here we have the environmental laws that regulate company if my client only complained about the a specialist is being tracked into a non work area that endangers the public and never to express has any concern about workplace safety i would be arguing before the court because my workplace safety claim had been had been dismissed if if there was no implication of workplace safety i wouldn't have a six fifty four base excuse me i missed i misspoke i misunderstood the question yes he did there was a third claim that we did have for the osha violations exactly for one of the three types of complaints client wasn't simply discussing the disturbance of especially those with witnesses first of all they weren't witnesses to what the evidence is that they were not present when the special was disturbed second of all even if they were witnesses by labeling it illegal that is a material difference than simply discussing the fact that a look what they did this is how they did it in discussing the conduct itself labeling it a legal means to the report activity and the judge brown in the lower fork in the case started in our materials got it right as did the bureau of labor and industry that they report to any person including including the employees supervisor constitutes a report the kind of relies upon those building regulations to argue for horton the pows are different but those same volley regulations state that records can security guard was fired and they said well we have we were fired in violation morgan public policy oregon law says that you know it's important to keep the peace in oregon why even authorize the citizen's arrest and the court the supreme court said no there's there's two ways to reach the wrongful discharge story you can have any you can be exercising a public duty or societal obligation or or you can be exercising employment related right that is also out of the public importan whole thing happened in about half an hour there was a concern it was really like the time and yes at one moment they were concerned for their safety at the next one that their allegedly concern for other people's safety but it all comes down to one incident i think it's it i don't think it's bunch of people who got excited in the moment all right now they're all milling about they're talking about wow i can't believe this terrible well how could this happen to us what might happen to other people around it and he's just one of no dependence got it wrong look at here are twenty one twenty two here are eighty and eighty four johnson f d r eighty and eighty four laid out three specific distinct complaints one is about and each one of great responses to anyone else have a problem with that and the testimony is nobody else responds elif that point of sentence well maybe we ought to get somebody else involved and gray's response is i don't understand you guys i've been working around this for two years and nobody's ever had a problem with it my guy's been hired or days earlier there's enough evidence there th and this is the first time the issue of a specialist has led to a walkout there's nothing evidence there for a jury to decide whether gray blames my client for the various reports he's made said it was investigated and fifty p tried to make the complaint on friday the day of the incident you got home too late to contact or osha he goes in and is terminated monday afterwards he does file a complaint indicating his good