Opinion ID: 702948
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Oregon State Law Claim

Text: 11 To succeed on her state law claim, Mitchell again must prove that her protected activity of reporting retirement home abuses was a substantial factor in MWVSSA's decision to act against her. Seitz v. State, 788 P.2d 1004, 1010 (Or.Ct.App.1990). Mitchell has not proffered sufficient facts to create a genuine issue of fact on causation in relation to her state law claim. 12 As with her federal claim, Mitchell relies on proximity in time as her main evidence that MWVSSA's adverse employment actions were triggered by her protected activity. She cites Seitz and argues that causation should be inferred, because she received her negative evaluation and transfer soon after she submitted her report on the Marian Retirement Center. In Seitz, the Oregon court found that the substantial factor test was met where the employer did not critique the employee until after the employee engaged in protected activity and the employer's own memo referred to the protected activity (the filing of a race and sex discrimination complaint) as a reason for removing her. Id. Mitchell's case is not supported by the same direct documentary evidence available in Seitz. 13 Mitchell claims that causation is proven by the fact that MWVSSA's proferred reasons for transferring her are untruthful. MWVSSA asserts that it transferred Mitchell out of the protective services unit because of her antagonistic investigatory style, her failure to prepare reports at the rate of other employees and her excessive unfounded reporting of complaints about physicians to the BME. 14 Mitchell has not shown that MWVSSA provided false reasons for her transfer. Mitchell provides no evidence that MWVSSA transferred her for a reason other than her investigatory style. Mitchell claims that Petersen's deposition testimony shows that chronic understaffing at the protective services division, before and after Mitchell's employment, caused the backlog of cases. But Petersen's testimony indicates that Mitchell herself did not work at an acceptable speed and was transferred partly for that reason. Mitchell notes that some of her referrals to the BME resulted in findings of violations, that Petersen herself had referred complaints to the BME and that nobody questioned Mitchell's good faith in making the referrals. These facts do not defeat MWVSSA's claim that the transfer decision was prompted because Mitchell made an excessive number of referrals which were often unsupported and unfounded. 15 Mitchell also attempts to provide proof of causation by alleging that Reese had ties to MWVSSA which allowed him to force Mitchell's removal in retaliation for her report of abuses at Marian. Mitchell points out that Reese serves on the legislative committee for Oregon's nursing home owner's association. The executive director of the nursing home owner's association was a retired MWVSSA executive director. However, Mitchell offers no summary judgment evidence indicating that Reese actually had any connection to the administration at MWVSSA sufficient to allow him to force MWVSSA's decision to transfer Mitchell. MWVSSA admits that it transferred Mitchell partly because of complaints by nursing home owners, such as Reese. However, Mitchell provides no evidence showing that MWVSSA transferred Mitchell for her investigations resulting in reports of abuse rather than her investigatory behavior.