Richard Lee Issue: County Employee Protections

1) Reporting public endangerment resulting from an action by a public employer;
2) A public employer may not prohibit, discourage, restrain, dissuade, coerce, orotherwise interfere with any employee disclosing to any person, or take or threatento take disciplinary action against an employee for disclosing any information thatthe employee reasonably believes is evidence of:
(a) A violation of any federal orMemorandum to the Clatsop County Board of CommissionersFebruary 8, 2008Page 6state law, rule or regulation by action of the state agency or political subdivision, or
b) Mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or substantial andspecific danger to public health and safety resulting from action of the state,agency or political subdivision.
3) No public employer may identify the employee who discloses matters described inthis rule during any investigation of the information provided by the employeewithout the written consent of the employee. And, no supervisory or managementemployee of a public employer may reveal to an employee accused of malfeasance the identity of the employee who discloses matters described in ORS659A.203 or reports described in ORS 659A.212.4)
No public employer may take any disciplinary action against an employee foremployee activity described and protected by the law. An employer, however, is not precluded from taking disciplinary action if:
a. The information disclosed is known by the employee to be false;
b. The employee discloses the information with reckless disregard for itstruth or falsity; orc. The information disclosed relates to the employee's own violations,mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, orendangerment of the public health or safety.Discrimination Based on Protected Status. ORS 659A.030 relates to claims of retaliation.
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a complainant must prove:
(1) she engaged in protectedactivities;
(2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and
(3) there was a causal link between theprotected activities and the adverse employment action. These elements are also stated in a corollaryfederal statute related to federal employment claims, 42 USC § 2000e et seq.
The elements of the claimare the same under federal law – that is, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Complainant mustprove:
(1) she engaged in protected activities;
(2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and
(3)there was a causal link between the protected activities and the adverse employment action. Ray v.Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000).
Tort Claim.
The tort alleged by the Lee’s attorney, interference with the business relationship,requires proof that
1) there is the existence of a business relationship
2) intentional interference with thatrelationship
3) by a third party,
4) accomplished by improper means or for an improper purpose,
5) a causal effect between the interference and the damage to the economic relationship and 6) actual damages.Services Employees Intl, v. Walter 2007 ORCA A129008-121207, citing McGanty v.Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 535, 901 P2d 841 (1995).