by John J. Tollefsen | Jan 26, 2009 | Blog, Employment Law OR, Oregon, Whistleblowing OR
Oregon limits whistleblower protection No protection for reporting alcohol violations or immigration violations Handam v. Wilsonville Holiday Partners, LLC (Or.App. Jan 28, 2009) As a part of his employment, Plaintiff was licensed to serve liquor under the administrative rules of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). As banquet captain and the morning shift manager, plaintiff supervised several Hispanic employees who were not fluent in English. He discovered photographs showing Hispanic employees drinking champagne and beer during their shift, in violation of OLCC rules. Plaintiff showed the photographs to some managers; they laughed but took no action against the employees. Plaintiff also learned that the Hispanic employees were violating OLCC rules by keeping open containers of alcoholic beverages in the banquet office and refrigerator. Plaintiff reported the alcohol violations to his manager who ignored them but started to treat plaintiff differently by refusing to allow him to take rest and meal breaks, reducing his work hours, making his job harder by reducing his staff, correcting him about things for which he did not correct Hispanic employees, and giving Hispanic employees more hours even though plaintiff had seniority. Plaintiff began to believe that he was being treated differently because he is not Hispanic. Eventually, the manager demoted Plaintiff to waiter. Plaintiff quit his job. He brought this proceeding, asserting, among other claims, that he was constructively discharged from his employment in retaliation for complaining about the Hispanic employees. The general rule in Oregon is that employment is “at will.” That means that, except as otherwise provided by statute or employment agreement, employees may be terminated without notice and for any reason....
by John J. Tollefsen | Nov 25, 2008 | Blog, Employment Law OR, Oregon, Whistleblowing OR
The Civil Rights Act protects against government action violating constitutional rights if (1) plaintiff has spoken on a matter of public concern, (2) the state lacks an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public, and (3) there is a genuine and material dispute as to the scope and content of plaintiff’s employment duties.” Recent cases covering these issues are briefed below: Public Employee Whistleblower Protection Improved Posey v. Lake Pend Oreille School Dist. No. 84, — F.3d —- (2008 C.A.9 -Idaho), October 15, 2008 A former high school employee filed § 1983 (Civil Rights Act) action against the school district claiming retaliation in violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments. His position as security specialist was eliminated and the district failed to rehire him in newly consolidated position after he sent a letter of complaint to district officials. He also had meeting to complain of both personal grievances and alleged inadequate safety and security policies at high school. United States District Court for the District of Idaho, Edward J. Lodge, J., granted district summary judgment based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). Ceballos, a district attorney, claimed he had been fired for a memo he had written alleging misrepresentations in a police affidavit supporting a search warrant. The Supreme Court held that when a public employee speaks pursuant to his or her official duties, as Ceballos did, the speech is not protected because any restriction on that speech “simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the...
