Warrington v. Roseburg Forest Products Co.

• Court: District Court, D. Oregon
• Decided: February 4, 2020
• Docket: 6:18-cv-00205
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

INT HEU NITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T FORT HED ISTROIFCO TR EGON .E UGENDEI VISION

JUSTWIANR RINGTON, CasNeo6 .: 18-cv-00205- OPINIAONND O RDER Plaintiff, vs. ROSEBUFROGR EPSRT ODUCCTOS. , AD omesBtuisciC noerspso ration, Defendant. AIKENJ,u dge: PlaiJnutsitWffia rnri ngfitloetndh iasc taigoani hnisfostr meerm ployer, RosebFuorrgeP srto duCcot.as,s serctlianiogmfw s o rkpldaicsec rimainndation ! retaliPaltaiiomnnot.vifo effrs p artsiuamlm ajruyd gmoenhn itfos u rctlha foirm whistlerbeltoawlueinrad tOeiRroS 6n 5 9A.F1o9tr9h .re e assoenfotsr tbhe low, plainMtoitffisoP na rfotSriu amlm aJruyd gm(edno2tc0 i.)Ds E NIED. BACKGROUND Defendant FRoorseePsbrtuo rdgui csat csl oselmya-nfahucetludar nedr markeotfwe orop dr oduPcltasi.wn atasip ffr oduecmtpilooanyt te hete i moefh is termination. Pag1e-O PINIAO�DNO RDER InM arc2h0 1d0e,f enbdaannntteh due s oeft obapcrcood uocnct osm pany propeFrotlyl.ot whibena gon n t obapcrcood uecmtpsl,ob yeegesasmn o kiinna g neardbiyt( c"htd hiet cahd"j)at coce onmtp parnoyp oenrt thwyee stosfHi idgeh way 99j,u nsotr otcfho mphJenayd quarters. ! InM ay2 01fo6l,l owai snagafe ctcyi wdheenartw e o rkwearns e asrtlrybu yc k ac awrh islmeo kiintngh dei tdcehfe,n deannatca tp eodl" itceym p0s1u·sapreinldyi ng smokiinon rag r ou[ntddh iet cChr]e.i"gD heteEolxn6.. . OnJ un2e,2 016, psluapienrtviSiff'tsseBo vrreu, g gesmaawpn l,a intiff smokinnega trhfo eg l ionnet hwee stosfiH dieg hw9a9jy u nsotr otfch o mpany headquaBrrtuegrgsea.mp apnr oapclhaeiadnn tsdiffu spehnidmue ndt fuirlt her notfoircv ei olcaotmipnpagon lyi cy. OnJ un8e,2 01p6l,a imnettiw ffi tBhr uggeamnadHn u maRne sources SuperJvoihsWnoh ri tetlode iys cpulsasi netmipfflso ysmteanttAu ftse.tr h·e meetpilnagi,wn attsie ffr miantta htieen ds trouWfch tiitofoenrlv eiyo lcaotmipnagn y policy. Duritnhgme e etWihnigt,e tloeonyko toensw hawta ss aiIdn.h inso tes, Whitwreolettyeh aptl aisnati"id[ff,h fe ]lteth ahten eedteosd t aunpdfo r h miself

anhdi rsi gahsot tsh oeftresfan i lteodd os oC.r"e ightEoxn5. . D eel. OnJ ul3y,2 071,i nr espotnoas B eu reoafLu a baonrId n dustries (BOL complpalianitmn ltdiWeffh, i tesluebym iatfo tremdas lt atetmoBe OnLtaI b out plaintteirffmsi nTahtseit oant.e smaeitndht ad tu ritnhmgee etpilnagi,n tiff had sahiedw a"st rytiomn agka ep oin"ts[t,a]n"ud p[fo irhn igrs]i ghatnstd[h ,a]t" he "ditdhni'tnthk Ce o mpacnoyuc lodn twrhoahlte cdooou nlh dio sw tni meC.r"e ighton DeeElx.7.a t2 . STANDAORFDR EVIEW Summajruyd gmieasnp tp ropwrhie"antt heie nsro eg enudiinsep austt oae n y matefraiacantltd h meo vainestn tittjolu eddg maesanm ta ttoeflr a wF.e"dR ..C iv. P.56(aS)u.b stalnatdwie vtee rmwihneetsahfa ecrit sm aterTiW.a. El l.e Sce.r v., Incv..P acE.l eCco.n traAcsst'o8nr0,sF9 . 26d2 66,3 (09 tChi1 r9.78 )A. d ispiust e autheinfat rieca soljiuarcbyol uerl edt uar vne rdfoirct th neo nmovpianrgt y.

Andervs.Lo inb eLrobtbyIy ,n c4.2,U7 . S2.4 22,4( 81 98T6h)me.o vipnagr htayts h e burdoefen s tabltihsaththi enirgsne og enuiisnseou fme a tefarcitaC.le loCtoerxp . v.Catr4e7tU7t. ,S3 .1 73,2( 31 98O6n)ct.eh meo vipnagr etsyt abltihasebh seesn ce ofg enuiisnseu oefms a terfaicattl,h beu rdsehni tftost hneo nmovpianrgtt oy estabagl einsuhii snseou fme a tefarcibtae ly otnhpdel eadIidna.gt3 s 2.4 . Specriualloe fcs o nstraupcptwlihyoe nen v aluaat cilnafogir ms ummary i judgm(e1na)tlr :le asodnoaubblatests ot heex istoefan cgee niusisonufmeea terial facsth oublerd e soalgvaeidtn hsmeto vipnagr atny(d;2 a)li ln ferednrcaewfrsno m thuen derlfaycitmnsug sb tev iewientd h lei gmhotsfa tv oratbotl hene o nmoving partyT.W. . E leSce.r Ivn.c,8. 0,F9 . 2adt6 30-W3h1e.tn h ien toefnap t a ritsay t issgueen,e raaj lulryy s"hboaeul lldo twoedr da wi tosw ni nferefrnocmet sh e □." undispfauctteusdn leaslsrl e asonianbfelree ndceefesa t [plcalianitmiffs] CommodFiuttyu Trraedsi nCgo nimv'.Sn a va6g1eF1,. 22d7 02,8 (39 tChi1 r9.7 9) (ciMtuitnF.gu nIdn uu'.Pr ust nMagmm tC.o 5.5,F 3. 26d2 06,2( 49 tChi1 r9.7 7)). DISCUSSION

Plaimnotviefffosr s ummajruyd gmoenhn itOs R S6 59A.w1h9i9sl tolweebr retalicaltaiiOomrn.e gloanwp rohibits froemmr peltoayleiaragsta iiannngs t emplowyheohe a "si gno ofadi trhe poirntfoerdm atthiatothne e m ployee isb elieve evidoeafnv cieo laotafs i toanot rfee d erlaalwr ,u olre reguOlRaS6t 5i9oAn..1"9 9(1). Top revoanai c ll afiomrr e taluinadtOeiRroS n6 59A.p1l9a9i,mn utsistffh otwh at hew as(:1w )a esn gaignaep dr oteacctteid(v 2is)tu yff;ea rnea dd veermspel oyment

decisain(od3n a;)c auscaoln neecxtiibsoetnts w tehepenr oteacctteiadvn itdth ye adveermspel oydmeecnitsB irounn.ov z.Cz aib le CoImnmc8c.5'F,1n. s39,d9 09,9 8 (9tChi2 r0.1 c7e),rd te.n i1e3Sd8.,C t 1.6 (7U .2S0.1 7). Plainatsisffet rhtahste i se ntittols eudm mary judgmheen( t1 )b ecau engaignea pd r oteacctteibdvy ti etlyl hiisnsug p erhveiw saos"r t rytiomn agk ae poianntsd t aunpdfo rh irsi ghtCsr[e,i]gD"he teoElnx.7 . a t2 ;( 2w)a st erminated fromh ipso siwtiitodnne fendaannd(t 3;p) l ainptriofftsea cctteidcv aiutshyei ds terminDaetfeinodnra.en stp otnhdagste nuiisnseou fme ast efarcirtae lg arding the proteacctteidav nidct ayu saetlieomneo nfpt lsa intiffs clsauimmm arpyr eclu

judgnmte. UndOeRrS 6 59A.a1p 9l9a,i ntiffi naep nrgoatgeecst ewdh eatnch te"iyiv ni ty goofda irtehp oirntfo□r matthiatothn[p e l ainbteilffi]ie sev veisd eonfav c ieo lation of[ as]t aotrfee d erlaalwr ,u lorer egulaOtRiS6o 5n9.A". (119T)9h. Oe r egCoonu rt ofA ppehaalhsse lt1da tt haep propriatfoer a sssteasn"sdgiaonfarogidd t uhn"d er ORS6 59A.i1as9s 9u 'bjeocnteli,ov oekt iotn hgke n owleidngteeo,nrs t t,ao tfme i nd of the plaintiff at the time of the report. Hall v. State, 274 Or. App. 445, 451-452, 453 (2015) (noting that, sinder ORS 659A.230, which prohibits retaliation against employees who “in good faith reported criminal activity [,]” “good faith relates to what the employee knew at the time of the report”); see also Netghorn v. Quest Health Care, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1102 @. Or. 2012) (construing ORS 659A.199 to require a good faith belief that there is a violation of state or federal law). That question is generally one for the jury unless only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 283 (th Cir. 1979). On this record, a jury could draw reasonable inferences going either way on what plaintiffs subjective intent and beliefs were at the June 8, 2016 meeting. Because plaintiffs motion fails at the protected activity element, the Court declines to address the causation element of plaintiffs claim. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. 20) is DENIED. ITIS SO ORDERED. Dated this 4h, of February 2020

Aiken US. District Judge

Page 5 -OPINION AND ORDER