Published Cases/Significant Results

Cornier v. Tulacz

Oregon Court of Appeals. Plaintiff is entitled to statutory penalty for employer's failure to pay plaintiff's vacation pay.

Halseth v. B.C. Towing (Opinion regarding Summary Judgment)
Halseth v. B.C. Towing (Opinion regarding Attorney Fee Petition)

Attorney Fees: $115,412 in attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff as prevailing party in a sexual harassment suit.

Nilsson v. Luke-Dorf
Nilsson v. Luke-Dorf

Remedies and Whistleblowing: U.S. District Court. Employee's whistleblowing claims allowed to proceed to trial. Court denied defendant's attempts to limit plaintiff's available remedies.

Delima v. Home Depot

Sex Discrimination: U.S. District Court. Plaintiff presented a question of fact on her Equal Pay Act, Sex, Wage, and Wrongful Discharge claims and could proceed to trial.

Ernst

 

Fraser v. US Bancorp

 

Goodman-Herron v. Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation

U.S. District Court Oregon. Goodman-Herron's motion for summary judgment against Hirsch's counterclaim granted in part and denied in part, limiting defendant's damages to a specific time period.

Heller v. Columbia Edgewater

U.S. District Court. Plaintiff stated claims for sexual orientation discrimination and gender discrimination.

Johnson v. Best Overhead Door

Oregon Court of Appeals. Appeals court affirmed trial court's ruling, in plaintiff's favor, that "civil procedure rule [Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(D)], governing time for filing pleadings or motions, expressly gave trial court authority to permit the late filing of employee's statement of attorney fees after the time limited by the procedural rules."

Kinnee v. Shack

U.S. District Court. urt granted plaintiff's motion to quash production of her tax returns because relevant information can be obtained through alternative source such as W-2.

LineDrivers v. RoadwayExpress

U.S. District Court. Successfully argued on behalf of employer that discharge of 10 employees alleged to have assaulted another employee was proper, and construing the term "occurrence" defined in a collective bargaining agreement as requiring the employer's knowledge of the incident.

Wells v. Clackamas Enterology

 

Pavon v. Swift Transportation

U.S. District Court/9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Race Discrimination: Appellate Court upholds a $550,000 verdict for plaintiff in race discrimination claim.

Sims v. Besaws.pdf

Oregon Court of Appeals. Plaintiff stated claims for sexual orientation discrimination under the City of Portland's anti-discrimination ordinance.

Stanich v. Precision Body and Paint, Inc.

Oregon Court of Appeals. Reversal of trial court's decision granting defendants' motion for directed verdict based on issue preclusion on one claim but barring plaintiff from relitigating a similar claim. Denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's wage claim, requiring defendants to "establish at trial that plaintiff was compensated for all wages due within one business day of being fired or that the amount given to her on August 19 was intended to compensate her for all wages, both regular and penalty."

Volm v. Legacy Health Systems, Inc.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Appellate Court upheld verdict on behalf of Lactation Consultant on claim of intentional interference with economic relations. The Court also upheld District Court's ruling that the peer review statute, ORS 41.675(1) did not apply.

Sizemore v. City of Dallas

U.S. District Court. Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff's claims for race discrimination and first amendment freedom of speech.

Marquez v. Harper School District

U.S. District Court. Court denied defendant's motions for summary judgment against plaintiff's claims for discrimination and retaliation on the basis of sex, wrongful termination, and negligent hiring and retention. Court construed defendant's drafting of Offer of Judgment against defendant where the Offer did not explicitly exclude an award of fees and costs.

These materials have been prepared by Crispin - Russell PC for information purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between the sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and on-line readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.