Cuddigan-Placito v. State Action Insurance Fund

Any person who engages in protected conduct, like opposing discriminatory practices, is not discouraged from doing so by the threat of disparate treatment by their employer. However, there needs to be a causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged unlawful employment practice to make a successful claim.

Appellant appealed the trial court’s grant of State Action Insurance Fund’s (SAIF) motion for summary judgment, arguing that the trial court erred because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether she had engaged in a protected activity as laid out in the statutes. She also argued that the trial court had erred in dismissing her claims under ORS 659A.199 and ORS 659A.203 in failing to address a different report of illegal activity that plaintiff alleged. “Any person who is engaged in protected conduct, such as opposing discriminatory practices or seeking redress in an agency or court, is not discouraged from doing so by the threat of being subjected to adverse, disparate treatment.” PSU Association of University Professors v. PSU, 352 Or 697, 710 (2012). Here, the court held that appellant’s activities were not protected activities, and even had they been, she was still missing the causal relationship between the activity and the unlawful employment practice. Further, the court held with respect to appellant’s second claim that, although there was a genuine issue of material fact, the appellant similarly failed to present evidence of a causal link. AFFIRMED.