SALEM, Ore. (Legal Newsline) - Oregon’s highest court has reversed an appeals court’s dismissal of a wrongful-discharge suit by a former state agency official, saying it was up to the jury to decide whether it was reasonable for her to think she was fired for whistleblowing.
Kyle Walker was hired as chief executive officer of the Oregon Travel Experience, a quasi-public agency responsible for tourism market signs, in December 2012. She soon became embroiled in disputes with the OTE’s volunteer governing board, however, and was fired in October 2014.
After she was fired, Walker sued the agency, claiming the board retaliated against her for informing a state administrative official about a variety of complaints including violating the public meeting law. Walker took charge of OTE after an auditor determined the agency wasn’t in compliance with state standards for employee pay and much of her dispute with the governing board was over implementing a new pay plan.
When Walker and the governing board scheduled a meeting to discuss the pay dispute, the board’s chair told Walker’s administrative assistant it didn’t require public notice. Walker disagreed and obtained an opinion confirming her belief from an attorney with the state Department of Justice. But she consented to keeping the meeting closed anyway, saying she feared for her job.
At trial, the judge determined whether she was fired over whistleblowing was a fact question for the jury to decide and Walker was awarded $1.2 million. The agency moved to reverse the verdict, saying Walker’s actions didn’t constitute whistleblowing. She informed the wrong state official about OTE’s alleged legal violations, the agency argued, and it was she who violated the public meeting law by failing to provide notice.
An appeals court agreed, reversing the verdict. But the Oregon Supreme Court reversed again, clarifying the principles behind wrongful discharge claims and state whistleblowing law. In an April 8 decision by Justice Lynn Nakamoto, the unanimous court said the appeals court confused the legal question of whether whistleblowing can give rise to a wrongful-dismissal claim with the fact question of whether whistleblowing occurred.
“The proper focus of the legal question at hand is not whether plaintiff proved whistleblowing,” the Supreme Court ruled. “Rather, the question is whether plaintiff identified an important public policy animating her activity that would be thwarted by permitting defendant to discharge her without potential liability in tort.”
Walker adequately pled she was fired after raising allegations of public interest, the court went on, and at that point it was up to the jury to decide whether she reasonably believed she had engaged in whistleblowing. Juries routinely make similar decisions in lawsuits over workplace harassment and similar questions, the court said, so there was no reason to make an exception for whistleblowing.