Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC

Palmer v. Bi-Mart Co., 92 Or. App. 470, 758 P.2d 888 (1988), holds that the exclusive remedy provided in ORS 656.018 for “injuries, diseases, symptom complexes or similar conditions arising out of and in the course of employment” does not preclude an employee from bringing an employment discrimination claim against her employer based on an injury to a separate, distinct legal right, even when the two claims arise from the same set of facts.

Plaintiff appeals judgements dismissing their employment discrimination case. The plaintiff assigns error to the trial court's determination that plaintiff’s claims came within the exclusive jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation system. Plaintiff argued that the exclusive remedy section of ORS 656.018 is limited to workplace injuries and his separate aiding and abetting claims are not limited by workers compensation. Palmer v. Bi-Mart Co., 92 Or. App. 470, 758 P.2d 888 (1988), holds that the exclusive remedy provided in ORS 656.018 for “injuries, diseases, symptom complexes or similar conditions arising out of and in the course of employment” does not preclude an employee from bringing an employment discrimination claim against her employer based on an injury to a separate, distinct legal right, even when the two claims arise from the same set of facts. The Court reasoned that the abiding and abetting claim was distinct from his worker compensation claim and did not fall within the exclusive remedy provision of ORS 656.018. The Court further reasoned Kahn v. Providence Health Plan, 335 Or. 460, 465, 71 P.3d 63 (2003), clarified that the exclusive remedy is only procedural and governs how the claims are reviewed, it does not bar employees from bringing separate civil actions against their employers. Limited judgments reversed and remanded