Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council

A claim of wrongful discharge requires a plaintiff to identify an important public policy that would be foiled if the plaintiff were discharged; “it is necessary to ‘find’ a public duty, not create one.” Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or 401, 409, 40 P3d 1059 (2002). “The reasonableness of an employee’s belief” about an employer’s violation of law, like the reasonableness determination in civil negligence claims, is a question of fact. Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 12, 734 P2d 1326 (1987).

Petitioner claimed her public employer wrongfully discharged her termination for whistleblowing.  The jury found in favor of Petitioner, but the Court of Appeals reversed because Petitioner’s action “had not served an important public policy.”  Petitioner appealed and argued she “was entitled to rely on” Oregon’s whistleblowing statute “to establish protected activity” under the tort of wrongful discharge.  Petitioner further asserted the “objectively reasonable belief” element of whistleblowing was a question of fact, not law.  In response, the State disagreed and further argued that the objectively reasonable belief element “is a question of law for the court.”  A claim of wrongful discharge requires a plaintiff to identify an important public policy that would be foiled if the plaintiff were discharged; “it is necessary to ‘find’ a public duty, not create one.”  Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or 401, 409, 40 P3d 1059 (2002).  “The reasonableness of an employee’s belief” about an employer’s violation of law, like the reasonableness determination in civil negligence claims, is a question of fact.  Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 12, 734 P2d 1326 (1987).  The Court found Petitioner was entitled to rely on the whistleblowing statute, ORS 659A.203(1), and held lower court  applied the wrong standard of review.  Reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.