Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp.
Decision Date | 22 February 2002 |
Citation | 333 Or. 401,40 P.3d 1059 |
Parties | Kenneth BABICK, Gary Moore, and Jack K. Minzey, Jr., and others similarly situated, Petitioners on Review/Respondents on Review, v. OREGON ARENA CORPORATION, an Oregon Corporation, Respondent on Review/Petitioner on Review. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
William B. Aitchison, of Aitchison & Vick Inc., Portland, argued the cause for petitioners on review/respondents on review. Megan E. Glor, of Swanson, Thomas & Coon, Portland, filed the brief. John R. Faust, Jr., Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review/petitioner on review. With him on the brief were Karen O'Kasey, Thomas M. Triplett, and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
Stephen L. Brischetto, Portland, filed a brief for amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.
Before CARSON, Chief Justice, and GILLETTE, DURHAM, LEESON, and RIGGS, Justices.2
The issue in this civil action is whether plaintiffs, at-will employees who worked for defendant as security guards at a concert arena, stated claims for relief for wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. The Court of Appeals ruled that certain of the plaintiffs had stated claims for relief with respect to both torts. Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 160 Or.App. 140, 980 P.2d 1147 (1999). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals with respect to those plaintiffs' wrongful discharge claim, but otherwise affirm.
We take the following statement of facts from the lead opinion in the Court of Appeals:
160 Or.App. at 142-43, 980 P.2d 1147.
After they were fired, plaintiffs brought the present action against defendant, alleging wrongful discharge (on the theory that they had been discharged for fulfilling an important societal duty, i.e., arresting lawbreakers) and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress (on the theory that, in terminating their employment, defendant intended to and did cause them severe emotional distress). Defendant moved to dismiss under ORCP 21 A(8), and the trial court granted that motion. With the court's leave, plaintiffs then submitted an amended complaint that supplemented the factual allegations that pertained to the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress claim. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged:
The trial court concluded that the amended complaint also failed to state a claim and again dismissed, this time without leave to replead.
Plaintiffs appealed, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed in part. The Court of Appeals held that, with respect to the plaintiffs who participated in the arrests at the Phish concert, the complaint stated a claim for wrongful discharge, on a theory that those plaintiffs were terminated for fulfilling a public duty. 160 Or.App. at 149, 980 P.2d 1147. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful discharge claims with respect to those plaintiffs who did not participate in the arrests, concluding that the complaint alleged that those plaintiffs had been discharged because of their association with the other plaintiffs, a reason that cannot support a wrongful discharge claim. Id. The Court of Appeals also held that the complaint stated a claim for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress because plaintiffs' allegation in the amended complaint that defendant had subjected them to a threat of imminent danger (by releasing detainees) qualified as an allegation of "socially intolerable" conduct. Id. at 150, 980 P.2d 1147.
Defendant petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals' decision insofar as it holds that, with respect to the plaintiffs who did participate in the arrests, the complaint states viable claims for wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs also petitioned for review, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision to uphold the dismissal with respect to those plaintiffs who did not participate in the arrests. We allowed both petitions.
In reviewing a dismissal under ORCP 21 A(8), we accept all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and give plaintiffs the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the facts alleged. Scovill v. City of Astoria, 324 Or. 159, 164, 921 P.2d 1312 (1996). Our task is to determine only whether those allegations, so construed, are sufficient to constitute a claim. Id.
Although this court repeatedly has affirmed the general validity of the at-will employment rule,4 it has acknowledged that a discharge of an at-will employee nonetheless may be deemed "wrongful" (and, therefore, actionable) under certain circumstances. Examples of such circumstances include: (1) when the discharge is for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy, see, e.g., Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or. 597, 588 P.2d 1087 (1978)
(; or )(2) when the discharge is for fulfilling some important public duty, see, e.g., Delaney v. Taco Time Int'l, 297 Or. 10, 681 P.2d 114 (1984) ( ); Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or. 210, 536 P.2d 512 (1975) ( ).
Id. (quoting Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd., 129 Or.App. 371, 376, 879 P.2d 1288 (1994)
).
Applying that standard to the present case, the Court of Appeals examined the statutes that plaintiffs had identified as relevant: ORS chapters 131 to 170 (the Oregon Penal Code); ORS 181.870 et seq. ( ); ORS 133.220(3) ( ); and ORS 133.225(2) ( ). The Court of Appeals found...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Love v. Polk County Fire District
...whether defendant terminated her employment because she had fulfilled one or more "important public dut[ies]." Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or. 401, 407, 40 P.3d 1059 (2002). Defendant cross-assigns error to the trial court's denial of its motion to strike material from plaintiff's evi......
-
Delaney v. Clifton
...far more likely to meet the standard for outrageousness than conduct that is merely negligent. Compare Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or. 401, ___, 40 P.3d 1059, 1064-65 (2002) (employer exposed employees to imminent threat of physical harm by releasing a vengeful mob and contributed to ......
-
Stensland v. City of Wilsonville
...and discharge for complying with a public duty." Id., 1994WL 44616, at *2 (citing Patton, 719 P.2d at 856-57); see Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or. 401, 407 (2002) (same). This court has observed that resisting sexual harassment is an example of the exercise of a job-related right. Dra......
-
Walker v. State
...activity would be frustrated by permitting the employer to discharge the employee with impunity. In the first, Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp. , 333 Or. 401, 40 P.3d 1059 (2002), the trial court had dismissed the complaint because the plaintiffs, private security employees at a concert arena w......
-
"Just words": common law and the enforcement of state constitutional social and economic rights.
...that the public policy must require "the kinds of acts that allegedly triggered" the worker's discharge. See Babick v. Or. Arena Corp., 40 P.3d 1059, 1063 (Or. (197.) Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 28 (Okla. 1989); see also Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 316 A.2d 549 (N.H. 1974), describing......