Case Name: CITY OF PORTLAND, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES et al, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1983-08-17
Citations: 64 Or. App. 341
Docket Number: 29-78; CA A21748
Parties: CITY OF PORTLAND, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES et al, Respondents.
Judges: VAN HOOMISSEN, J.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 64
Pages: 341–352

Head Matter:
On respondent Phyllis J. Potter’s reconsideration filed January 31 and respondent Bureau of Labor and Industries’ reconsideration filed February 25,
reconsiderations granted; former opinion (61 Or App 182, 656 P2d 353) affirmed as modified August 17,
petitions for review allowed October 25, 1983 (295 Or 840)
See 298 Or 104, 690 P2d 475 (1984)
CITY OF PORTLAND, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES et al, Respondents.
(29-78; CA A21748)
668 P2d 433
Charles J. Merten, and Richard S. Yugler, Portland, for respondent Phyllis J. Potter’s petition.
Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Stanton F. Long, Deputy Attorney General, William F. Gary, Solicitor General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, for respondent Bureau of Labor and Industries’ petition.
VAN HOOMISSEN, J.
Newman, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part.

Opinion:
VANHOOMISSEN, J.
In our earlier opinion, we reversed a finding by the Commissioner that petitioner had committed an unlawful employment practice under ORS 659.030(1) (1975) by discriminating against claimant because of her sex. We upheld the Commissioner's finding that petitioner had unlawfully retaliated against claimant because of her complaints of discrimination. ORS 659.030(4) (1975). We therefore reversed the Commissioner's award of back pay; however, we remanded a damage award of $15,000 for emotional distress, which at one point in the Commissioner's findings was tied only to petitioner's "unlawful employment practices," because we were unable to determine if that award was compensation for claimant's discrimination claim, which we reversed, or for her retaliation claim, which we upheld.
In their petitions for reconsideration, claimant and the Commissioner cite other portions of the Commissioner's findings which clearly state that claimant's mental suffering resulted only from petitioner's unlawful retaliation and not from any pay disparity, and that the $15,000 award was intended to compensate claimant for damages she suffered because of the retaliation alone.
Reconsideration granted; modified to affirm the $15,000 damage award for retaliation; affirmed as modified.