Burley v. Clackamas County

Pursuant to ORS 659.001(4)(a), "for the purposes of chapter 659A, ’employer’ means any person who in this state, directly or through an agent, engages or uses the personal service of one or more employees, reserves the right to control the means by which such service is or will be performed. Additionally, ORS 659.001(9)(b) states “’[p]erson’ includes . . . [a] public body as defined in ORS 30.260.’”

Defendant Clackamas County ("Defendant") appealed a judgment awarded in favor of Plaintiff’s statutory whistleblower retaliation claims. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's submission of the ORS 659A.199 claim to the jury. On appeal, Defendant renewed its argument as to the intent of ORS 659A.199; arguing that the statute was to be held solely against private employers, not public employers. Pursuant to ORS 659.001(4)(a), "for the purposes of chapter 659A, ’employer’ means any person who in this state, directly or through an agent, engages or uses the personal service of one or more employees, reserves the right to control the means by which such service is or will be performed. Additionally, ORS 659.001(9)(b) states “’[p]erson’ includes . . . [a] public body as defined in ORS 30.260.’” The Court held that the legislature was clear in its intent when using the term “employer” in ORS Chapter 659A; defining it as applying to both private and public employers.

Affirmed.