Nicole McLaughlin v. Kenneth Wilson, M.D.

Pursuant to ORS 659A.030(1)(f), “(1) It is an unlawful employment practice: (f) [f]or any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any other person because that other person has opposed any unlawful practice, or because that other person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter or has attempted to do so.”

Plaintiff appealed the judgment that dismissed her claim for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with business relationships, and unlawful employment retaliation. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s dismissal of her claim under ORCP 21 A(8). On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the court misconstrued the statute and that ORS 659A.030(1)(f) applied to Defendant because he is a “person.” In response, Defendant argued that the statute only applies to retaliation by an employer and he was never Plaintiff’s employer and because it did not adversely affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Pursuant to ORS 659A.030(1)(f), “(1) It is an unlawful employment practice: (f) [f]or any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any other person because that other person has opposed any unlawful practice, or because that other person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter or has attempted to do so.” The Court of Appeals held that statutory context supported the conclusion that “person” appears to broadly encompass individuals like Defendant and after reviewing text, context, and legislative history, the Defendant’s conduct is the kind of discrimination that the legislature intended to regulate in ORS 659A.030(1)(f). Reversed and remanded as to retaliation claim.