|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Gene Summerfield v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission|
|Supreme Court Case 2|
|Michael E Rose on behalf of Gene Summerfield|
Colm Moore on behalf of Oregon Liquor Control Commission
|CLG n/p, DRK pro tem|
Statement of Issues:
|(1) If a jury finds that an employer discriminated or retaliated against the plaintiff for whistleblowing in violation of ORS 659A.199 but does not award money damages, and the trial court declines to reinstate the plaintiff, is the plaintiff generally entitled to other equitable relief?|
(2) If a worker who is allegedly injured and who is employed by a state agency brings a claim against the agency under ORS 659A.046(1) for failing, upon demand, to reemploy the worker "at employment which is available and suitable, " what must the worker establish for a prima facie case?
(3) If a trial court instructs the jury that, for a retaliation claim under ORS 659A.030(1)(f), plaintiff must prove that "the employer subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment decision, " was the court required to give a requested jury instruction defining "adverse employment action"?
These summaries of cases are prepared for the benefit of members of the media to assist them in reporting the court's activities to the public. Parties and practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider. Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider, see Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: