Sandoval v. Business Oregon

511 P.3d 89, 320 Or. App. 279
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJune 8, 2022
DocketA176333
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 511 P.3d 89 (Sandoval v. Business Oregon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sandoval v. Business Oregon, 511 P.3d 89, 320 Or. App. 279 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Submitted May 6, reversed and remanded June 8, 2022

Lydia SANDOVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BUSINESS OREGON, an agency of the State of Oregon, and Oregon Department of Revenue, an agency of the State of Oregon, Defendants-Respondents. Marion County Circuit Court 20CV16707; A176333 511 P3d 89

Thomas M. Hart, Judge. Carl Post and John Burgess filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondents. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 280 Sandoval v. Business Oregon

PER CURIAM Plaintiff appeals from a limited judgment dismiss- ing with prejudice her claims of employment discrimination and retaliation against Business Oregon, a state agency. Business Oregon moved for limited summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff’s tort claims notice was untimely under ORS 30.275. The trial court agreed and granted Business Oregon’s motion. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred, as her tort claim notice was timely. The state now concedes that the court erred in granting its motion for summary judgment. We agree and accept the concession, and therefore reverse and remand. A lengthy description of the case would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. Suffice it to say that plain- tiff’s tort claims notice given in March 2019 asserted facts in support of her claim that Business Oregon constructively discharged her from employment in November 2018. As rel- evant here, “[n]o action arising from any act or omission of a public body * * * shall be maintained unless notice of claim is given * * * within 180 days of the alleged loss or injury.” ORS 30.275(1), (2). As the state now recognizes, plaintiff did allege a loss or injury that occurred in the 180 days that preceded the notice of her claim. Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Schrecengost
511 P.3d 89 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
511 P.3d 89, 320 Or. App. 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandoval-v-business-oregon-orctapp-2022.