- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Employment Law
- Date Filed: 07-31-2019
- Case #: A161404
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Aoyagi, J. for the Court; Armstrong, J.; Ortega, J.; DeVore, J.; Lagesen, J.; Tookey, J.; DeHoog, J.; Shorr, J.; James, J.; Powers, J.; and Mooney, J.; Egan, C.J. dissenting.
- Full Text Opinion
Plaintiff appealed the trial court's affirmation of an arbitrator's award. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court's denial of his exception to ORCP 54 E, limiting attorney fees and costs, as well as the trial court's granting of the arbitrator's motion for an extraordinary fee. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that ORCP 54 E should not have been applied to the wage claim under ORS 652.200(2); citing other cases that analogize ORS 652.200(2) with ORS 20.080(1) and ORS 742.061. In response, Defendant argued that ORS 652.200(2) does not conflict with ORCP 54 E, and therefore was proper. "ORS 652.200(2) does not contain any 'beat the offer' language. . . it simply provides for attorney fees in a particular type of action, subject to a few conditions. . . [and] is therefore unlike ORS 20.080(1), ORS 742.061(1), or ORCP 54 E." The Court held that ORS 652.200(2) was not analogous to the cases and statutes cited by Plaintiff, and therefore ORS 652.200(2) and ORCP 54 E are to be construed in a manner that gives effect to both statutes, so the trial court did not err in denying Plaintiff's exceptions to the arbitrator's award.
Affirmed.