Title: Dymock v. Norwest Safety Protective Equipment
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S48333
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: April 25, 2002

Filed:  April 25, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FREDERICK C. DYMOCK, JR.,
		Respondent on Review,
	v.
NORWEST SAFETY PROTECTIVE
EQUIPMENT FOR OREGON INDUSTRY, INC.,
an Oregon corporation,
	Petitioner on Review.
(CC 16-98-18369; CA A105112; SC S48333)

	On review from the Court of Appeals.*
	Argued and submitted November 1, 2001.
	Terrence J. Hammons, Hammons &amp; Mills, Eugene, argued the
cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.
	David L. Jensen, Jensen, Elmore &amp; Stupasky, P.C., Eugene,
argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review.	
	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Leeson,
Riggs, and Balmer, Justices.** 
	LEESON, J.
	The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The
judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
	*Appeal from Lane County Circuit Court, Jack Mattison, Judge. 172 Or App 399, 401, 19 P3d 934 (2001).
	**De Muniz, J., did not participate in the consideration or
decision of this case.
		LEESON, J.
		The issue on review in this case is whether plaintiff
stated a claim for wrongful discharge after defendant terminated
plaintiff's employment for refusing to sign an agreement that
included a nonsolicitation provision.  The trial court granted
defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.  The Court
of Appeals reversed.  Dymock v. Norwest Safety Protective
Equipment, 172 Or App 399, 401, 19 P3d 934 (2001).  On review, we
reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
		Because this case was decided on a motion to dismiss,
we take the facts from plaintiff's complaint.  See Huff v. Great
Western Seed Co., 322 Or 457, 460, 909 P2d 858 (1996) (stating
methodology).  Plaintiff began working for defendant in 1981.  In
1998, defendant ordered plaintiff to sign a document entitled
"Restrictive Agreement" that contained multiple provisions,
including the following "nonsolicitation" provision: 
		"2.  Nonsolicitation.  Employee agrees, during the
term of employment and for a period of five years
thereafter, that he/she shall not:
			"2.1 Solicit the business of any business
entity which was a customer of Company at any
time during Employee's employment, or where
such entity was a target of Company's
marketing; and
			"2.2 Offer employment to any employee or
employees of Company who were employees
at any time during Employee's employment
with the Company."
Plaintiff refused to sign the agreement, and defendant terminated
plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim
asserts that defendant improperly ordered plaintiff to sign a
noncompetition agreement because the agreement had not been
presented to plaintiff at the time of plaintiff's initial
employment with defendant or at the time of a bona fide
advancement.  See ORS 653.295. (1)  
	Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim.  ORCP 21 A(8).  Defendant argued that the
agreement was a "confidentiality and nonsolicitation agreement,"
which is different from a noncompetition agreement.  In the
alternative, defendant contended that, even assuming that the
agreement was a noncompetition agreement, plaintiff had not
stated a claim for the tort of wrongful discharge.  The trial
court granted defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that
the agreement was "not a 'noncompetition agreement' as defined by
[ORS 653.295]."  
	In reversing the trial court's judgment, the Court of
Appeals first held that the agreement at issue is a
noncompetition agreement under ORS 653.295.  Dymock, 172 Or App
at 404.  That court then held that plaintiff had stated a claim
for wrongful discharge, because defendant had discharged
plaintiff for invoking an important employment-related statutory
right when plaintiff refused to sign the noncompetition
agreement.  Id. at 406.  
	We first address whether the agreement that defendant
allegedly ordered plaintiff to sign is a noncompetition
agreement.  Following the methodology prescribed by PGE v. Bureau
of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610, 859 P2d 1143 (1993),
the Court of Appeals examined the text and context of ORS
653.295(6)(c) to determine the legislature's intent in using the
term "noncompetition agreement" in that statute.  Dymock, 172 Or
App at 403-04.  It concluded at the first level of statutory
analysis that the legislature intended the term "noncompetition
agreement" to include a nonsolicitation agreement of the kind
involved in this case.  Id. at 404.  Defendant has offered no
persuasive reason why the Court of Appeals erred in its
interpretation of the statute, and we find no error.
	We turn to whether plaintiff has stated a claim for
wrongful discharge by alleging that defendant terminated his
employment because he refused to sign a noncompetition agreement. 
Plaintiff contends that he was discharged for pursuing an
employment-related right that reflects an important public
interest and that, under this court's decision in Delaney v. Taco
Time Int'l, 297 Or 10, 681 P2d 114 (1984), he has stated a claim
for wrongful discharge.  Defendant responds that ORS 653.295 does
not create a right to refuse to sign a noncompetition agreement
and that, even if the statute does create such a right, this
court should not recognize an infringement on that right as
implicating the tort of wrongful discharge, because the right is
one of private, not public, interest.  
	In 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.  The court explained that
one of those circumstances is when the employer terminated the
employee for pursuing "a right related to his role as an employee
and the right is one of important public interest indicated by
constitutional and statutory provisions."  Id. at 16 (emphasis
added).  Under that analysis, the initial question is whether
plaintiff was discharged for exercising an employment-related
right.  See Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597, 588 P2d 1087
(1978) (recognizing claim for wrongful discharge when employee
discharged for exercising statutory right to file workers'
compensation claim); Campbell v. Ford Industries, Inc., 274 Or
243, 250-51, 546 Or 141 (1976) (recognizing that employee who was
also stockholder had statutory right to examine corporate
records, but rejecting claim for wrongful discharge because right
not employment-related).
	As noted, plaintiff contends that ORS 653.295 confers
an employment-related right not to sign noncompetition agreements
that are presented at times other than permitted by that statute. 
Plaintiff is incorrect.  By its terms, ORS 653.295 declares that
noncompetition agreements that employers present to employees at
times other than those that the statute permits are void, and it
bars courts from enforcing them.  Nothing in the statute confers
a right to refuse to sign such agreements.  We decline to read
into ORS 653.295 a right that the legislature has not chosen to
create.  See ORS 174.010 (judges not to insert into statutes what
has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted).  Because ORS
653.295 does not confer on plaintiff the right to refuse to sign
the agreement that is at issue in this case, and because
plaintiff asserts no other source of such a claimed right, our
inquiry is at an end.  Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for
wrongful discharge.
	The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The
judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.



1. 	ORS 653.295 provides, in part:
		"(1) A noncompetition agreement entered into
between an employer and employee is void and shall not
be enforced by any court in this state unless the
agreement is entered into upon the:
		"(a) Initial employment of the employee with the
employer; or
		"(b) Subsequent bona fide advancement of the
employee with the employer.  
		"* * * * *
		"(6) As used in this section:
		"* * * * *
		"(c) 'Noncompetition agreement' means an
agreement, written or oral, express or implied, between
an employer and employee under which the employee
agrees that the employee, either alone or as an
employee of another person, shall not compete with the
employer in providing products, processes or services,
that are similar to the employer's products, processes
or services for a period of time or within a specified
geographic area after termination of employment."