Source: https://tonkon.com/attorneys/scott-seidman.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:18:06+00:00

Document:
Scott handles business disputes for clients at trial and on appeal. His areas of expertise include antitrust, labor and employment, energy, and tax law disputes. He also counsels businesses in labor and employment and antitrust compliance.
Clients rely on Scott to prosecute or defend critical "bet-the-company" business disputes. They also depend on Scott to advise them on cutting edge antitrust and labor and employment compliance issues.
Scott is an avid traveler and hiker, whether roaming the capital cities of Europe or following a trail in one of our own national parks. Here he is at Ooh Aah Point on the South Kaibab Trail in the Grand Canyon.
USDC for the District of Oregon — Won partial summary judgment in case alleging Sherman Act § 2 monopoly leveraging and refusal to deal claims, as well as breach of contract claims, remaining claims settled to the parties' satisfaction.
Helicopter Transport Services, Inc. v. Erickson Air-Crane Inc.
Estey & Associates, Inc. v. McCulloch Corporation et al.
USDC for the District of Oregon — Won defense judgment against claims for conspiracy, monopolization, and price discrimination.
Chilton Air Cooled Engines, Inc. v. Omark Industries, Inc.
USDC for the Middle District of Tennessee — Won dismissal of all but one claim alleging various conspiracy and other trade regulation claims, remaining claim settled favorably to our client.
Continental Maritime, Inc. v. Northwest Marine Iron Works et al.
USDC for the Northern District of California — Won summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, against shipyard/union conspiracy claims regarding diversion of ship repair business.
Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc.
340 Or 469 (2006) Judgment for our employer-client was affirmed in a disability discrimination case asserting that Oregon employers have an obligation to accommodate medical marijuana use. The Oregon Supreme Court established for the first time that Oregon disability law takes mitigating measures into account to decide whether an employee is disabled and entitled to disability protection.
443 F. 3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2006) In an appeal by public utilities challenging a uniform rate adjustment implemented across all customer classes, the Ninth Circuit upheld the BPA action. It rejected arguments that the rate increases should have been imposed only on non-public, investor-owned utilities, including our client, Portland General Electric Company.
339 Or 554 (2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 2960 (2006) We represented the AAA Oregon/Idaho defending attacks by the American Trucking Associations against Oregon's heavy truck tax system. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the tax did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
379 F. 3d 576 (9th Cir. 2004) The Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction entered in favor of our client, Nike, against an employee who tried to move to Nike competitor, Reebok. The court decided when a bona fide advancement occurs, an issue of first impression under Oregon law. The decision established a "totality of the circumstances" test favorable to employers who wish to bind employees to non-compete agreements upon promotion.
582 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) Establishing standards for when a return to work performance test constitutes a medical examination subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
2007 WL 1493139 (9th Cir. 2007) Jury verdict in favor of our employer-client was affirmed in case alleging that Nike had failed to promote plaintiff because of his race.
USDC for the Western District of Washington — Won summary judgment vacating a labor arbitration award that had reinstated an employee terminated for failing a random drug test, under a collective bargaining agreement providing for termination for all failed drug tests.
138 Or. App. 1 (1995) Affirming summary judgment in a worker's compensation discrimination case on the ground that issue preclusion applied to a determination in a worker's compensation proceeding that plaintiff had been fired for refusing to perform work within her restrictions, rather than for discriminatory reasons.
USDC for the District of Oregon — Obtained summary judgment dismissing various claims with punitive damage potential, remaining claims settled favorably to our client.
The popular Netflix series, Wild Wild Country, has placed the compelling story of the Rajneeshee cult community back in the spotlight. Led by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and Ma Anand Sheela, the commune was active in Wasco County, Oregon during the early 1980s. Tonkon Torp attorneys were involved in three well-documented lawsuits that helped to halt the fraudulent actions of the Rajneeshees and restore assets to former members of the cult.
Tonkon Torp trial attorneys Scott Seidman and Colin Geiger were victorious in defending Dooney & Bourke, Inc., in a wage claims trial in the U. S. District Court in Portland. Find details and more featured cases here.
Representing Portland General Electric (PGE), Tonkon Torp appellate lawyers successfully argued for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to uphold a settlement by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Find details and more featured cases here.
When Is an Appraisal Provision in a Contract an "Arbitration Agreement"?
Scott has authored numerous articles on antitrust, litigation, and labor and employment issues and has spoken frequently at antitrust and labor and employment continuing legal education programs.

References: § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.