N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B R ENTLEY FOSTER ; e t a l ., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. PATR IC K FLAHER TY, individually and in his pe rsona l c a

pa c ity for a c tions he took unde r c olor of sta

te la wa s De sc hute s C ounty Distric t Attorne y

an d De sc hute s C ounty Distric t Attorne y -Ele c t; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35825 D. C . No. 6:11 c v -06115 AA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Ann L. Aike n, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 15, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, TASHIM A, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s . Pla intiffs a

re thre e form e r Ore gon de puty distric t attorne y s (“ DDA” ) who
a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l of the ir c la im s a g a i nst De sc hute s C ounty and 

# FIL ED OCT 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.individua l C om m issione rs of the C o unty B oa rd of C om

m issione rs (c olle c tive ly ,

“ De fe nda nts” ). Pla intiffs we re te rm inate d by the ne wly -e le c t e d distric t attorne y (“ DA” ), Pa tric k Fla

he rty , the sam e da

y he took offic e on Ja

nua ry 3, 2011. In
antic ipation of thepote ntia l firings, Pla intiffs a nd othe r DDAs ha d

form e d a union following Fla

he rty ’ s e le c tion in M ay

2010. Although the

union a n d the C ounty te ntative ly

a gre e d in la te 2010 to a

propose d c olle c t ive ba

rga i ning a gre e m e nt (“ C B A” ), whic h inc lude d a good c a use re quire m e nt for te rm ination, theC ounty C om m issione rs de la

y e d the ra tific ation voteof the C B A until a fte r Flahe rty a ssum e d offic e . The distric t c ourt dismisse d Pla intiffs’ § 1983 fre e spe e c h re ta lia tion c la im
a ga inst De fe nda

nts a nd wrongful disc ha

rge , bre a c h of the c ove na nt of good fa ith
and fa ir de a ling, a

nd se x disc rim ination c la i m s a ga inst theC o unty . 1 W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm

the dism i ssa l. Unde r Ore gon la

w, DAs a re offic e rs of the State of Ore gon. Se e State v . C ole man , 886 P.2d 28, 30 (Or. C t. App. 1994). The DA is e m

powe re d both to
a ppoint DDAs, subje c t to the c ounty c ourt or boa

rd of c ounty

c om m issione rs’
a uthoriz ation of c om

pe nsation for thepositions, a nd to fire DDAs. Or. R e v. Stat.

1 Distric t

Attorne y Fla he rty origina lly wa s a

de fe nda nt in this ac tion, but he wa s dism isse d a fte r he re a c he d a se ttle m e n t with Pla intiffs. -2-§§ 8.760, 8.780; se ealso Morris v. Park s , 28 P.2d 215, 216 (Or. 1934) (“ The powe r of a

p pointm e nt ge ne ra lly

c arrie s with it a s a

n inc ide nt the powe r to re m ove .” ). DDAs “ have the sa m e qua lific a tions a s the distric t attorne y and, subje c t to the dire c tion of thedistric t attorne y , [have ] the sa m e func tions a s the distric t attorne y .” Or. R e v. Stat. § 8.780. B a s e d on the fore g oing, we c onc lude that DDAs a re State , not C ounty , e m

ploy e e s. Grav e

s v . Arnado , re lie d on by Pla i ntiffs, c onc e rns a

she riff’ s a

bility to hire and fire de puty

she riffs a nd is ina p posite be c a

u se she riffs a

re de e m e d c ounty

offic e rs by

Ore gon sta

tute . 768 P.2d 910, 912 (Or. 1989) (c iting Or. R e v. Stat. § 204.005). B e c a use the DA, a

nd not De fe nda

nts, wa s the e m

ploy e r of the DDAs, Pla i ntiffs m

ust look to the

DA who ha d the a

uthority to, a n d in fa c t did, te rm inate the i r e m ploy m e nt for a

ny dam a ge s flowing from Pla i ntiffs’ firings. B e c a use Pla i ntiffs’ loss of e m

ploy m e nt is theonly

c la im e d injury , this is fa

ta l to a ll of Pla i ntiffs’ c la im s. Pla i ntiffs’ c la im for bre a c h of the c o ve na

n t of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling fa ils for the a dditiona l re a s on tha t the re wa s no c ontra c t be twe e n the union a nd the C ounty

at the tim e of Pla intiffs’ te rm ination of whic h the im plie d
c ove na nt c ould ha

ve be e n a pa rt. Se e Vuk

a nov i c h v
. K

ine , 342 P.3d 1075, 1084 n.6 (Or. 2015) (“ B re a c h of the c ove na nt is a bre a c h of the c ontra c t .” ); K

lamath OffProje c t W

ate r Use rs, Inc . v . Pac ific orp , 240 P.3d 94, 101 (Or. C t. App. 2010). -3-AFFIRM E D.

-4-