Charlton v. Ed Staub And Sons Petroleum, Inc.

“Aid-or-abet liability under ORS 659A.030(1)(g) is no limited to employers and employees. Anyone qualifying as a ‘person’ under ORS 659A.001(9) may be an aider or abettor of an unlawful employment practice in a way that subjects them to liability.” Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 311 Or App 70, 80-81 (2021).

Charlton challenged the trial court’s dismissal of his claim against Quicksilver Contracting Company (“Quicksilver”). Charlton alleged the trial court erred in its interpretation of the aiding and abetting provision of Oregon employment law. Charlton claimed that the statute should be applied broadly to include liability for those who aid and abet, regardless of whether they are an employer or coworker. Quicksilver argued that because it was not the employer of Charlton, it could not be held liable under the statute. “Aid-or-abet liability under ORS 659A.030(1)(g) is not limited to employers and employees. Anyone qualifying as a ‘person’ under ORS 659A.001(9) may be an aider or abettor of an unlawful employment practice in a way that subjects them to liability.” Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 311 Or App 70, 80-81 (2021). The Court found that the trial court misinterpreted the provision as it was held in Hernandez. Because the law was held to not limit aid and abet liability to only employers or employees, it was error for the court to dismiss the claim against Quicksilver. Reversed and remanded.