Opinion ID: 808362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Wrongful Discharge” Under Oregon Law

Text: Under Oregon law “an employer may discharge an employee at any time, for any reason, unless doing so violates a contractual, statutory or constitutional requirement.” Yeager v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 96 P.3d 862, 865 (Or. Ct. App. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). The tort of wrongful discharge provides an exception to this general rule. Estes v. Lewis & Clark Coll., 954 P.2d 792, 796 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). An employee may bring a claim for wrongful discharge “when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy.” Yeager, 96 P.3d at 865 (internal citations omitted).3 Examples of “exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy,” include an employee filing for workers compensation, see 2 A plaintiff in an ADEA case is not required to plead a prima facie case of discrimination in order to survive a motion to dismiss. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508-11 (2002). Nevertheless, in situations such as this, where a plaintiff pleads a plausible prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff’s complaint will be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See Swanson, 614 F.3d at 404-05. 3 An employee may also bring a claim for wrongful discharge when she was discharged “for fulfilling some important public duty.” Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 40 P.3d 1059, 1062 (Or. 2002). Examples of a “public duty” wrongful discharge include discharge for refusing to defame another employee, see Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, 618 P.2d 114 (Or. 1984), or discharge for serving on jury duty, see Nees v. Hocks, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975). Id. This type of wrongful discharge is not at issue in this appeal. SHEPPARD v. EVANS AND ASSOC. 11177 Brown v. Transcon Lines, 588 P.2d 1087 (Or. 1978), or an employee taking leave under the Oregon Family Leave Act, see Yeager, 96 P.3d 862. [5] To prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge, a plaintiff “must establish a ‘causal connection’ between a protected activity and the discharge.” Estes, 954 P.2d at 796-97 (quoting Shockey v. City of Portland, 837 P.2d 505, 507 (Or. 1992)). A “causal connection” requires a showing that “the employee’s protected activity [was] a substantial factor in the motivation to discharge the employee.” Id. at 797 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]o be a substantial factor, the employer’s wrongful purpose must have been a factor that made a difference in the discharge decision.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). B. Sheppard’s Amended Complaint Includes Sufficient Facts to Plausibly Suggest that She Was Terminated for Requesting Medical Leave Sheppard alleges in her amended complaint that, “[p]rior to her termination, [she] requested Family Medical Leave for a serious illness.” Her amended complaint further alleges that she was “terminated immediately after she scheduled the surgery for which she requested Family Medical Leave” and that, prior to her termination, Sheppard had “received consistently good performance reviews.” These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for wrongful discharge. [6] The Supreme Court has emphasized that analyzing the sufficiency of a complaint’s allegations is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. In Sheppard’s case, “common sense” suggests that there is a “causal connection” between Sheppard’s request for medical leave and her termination. Significantly, Sheppard’s amended complaint alleges that she was terminated “immediately” after she scheduled her surgery. This allegation, in conjunction 11178 SHEPPARD v. EVANS AND ASSOC. with Sheppard’s allegation that she “received consistently good performance reviews” gives rise to an inference that Sheppard was performing her job well but was nonetheless terminated for requesting medical leave.