Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp.
40 P.3d 1059, 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 593, 333 Or. 401 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Terminating an at-will employee for making a lawful citizen's arrest does not constitute wrongful discharge under the 'public duty' exception because a permissive statute does not create a substantial public duty. However, an employer's act of intentionally exposing an employee to a threat of imminent physical harm may constitute an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.
Facts:
- Oregon Arena Corp. hired the plaintiffs to provide security at the Memorial Coliseum in Portland.
- Plaintiffs received training from Oregon Arena Corp. that included instruction on arrest protocol.
- During a concert by the band Phish, some plaintiff security guards arrested or attempted to arrest concertgoers for assault, illegal drug possession, and alcohol possession.
- These law enforcement actions were consistent with the training plaintiffs had received from their employer.
- During the concert, agents of Oregon Arena Corp. berated the plaintiffs for making arrests.
- Oregon Arena Corp. agents also interfered by releasing intoxicated and violent concertgoers whom the plaintiffs had detained, creating a threat of imminent physical harm to the plaintiffs.
- Approximately one week later, Oregon Arena Corp. fired its entire security staff in retaliation for the arrests made at the Phish concert.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued their former employer, Oregon Arena Corp., in an Oregon circuit court (trial court) for wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.
- The trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the trial court also dismissed.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding that the plaintiffs who made arrests had stated a claim for both wrongful discharge and emotional distress, and affirmed the dismissal of claims for plaintiffs who did not make arrests.
- Both defendant, Oregon Arena Corp., and plaintiffs petitioned for review to the Supreme Court of Oregon, which granted both petitions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does terminating at-will security guards in retaliation for making lawful citizen's arrests violate the 'public duty' exception to the at-will employment doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Gillette, J.
No. Terminating an at-will employee for making a lawful citizen's arrest does not violate the 'public duty' exception to the at-will employment doctrine. For the public duty exception to apply, the employee's action must be one that fulfills a substantial public policy found in a constitutional provision, statute, or case law. The court reasoned that the statutes authorizing citizen's arrests are merely permissive; they allow a private citizen to make an arrest but do not impose an affirmative duty or reflect a public policy so substantial that it would be thwarted by the termination. The court found that these statutes are neutral on whether such private law enforcement actions have high social value. Therefore, the discharge was not wrongful. However, the court held that the plaintiffs did state a claim for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress (IIED). It reasoned that the allegation that the defendant released 'intoxicated and violent' detainees, thereby exposing plaintiffs to a threat of imminent physical harm, could be found by a jury to be an 'extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct' required for an IIED claim.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and narrows the 'public duty' exception to the at-will employment doctrine in Oregon. It establishes that a public duty sufficient to protect an employee from termination must be rooted in something more than a statute that merely permits or authorizes an action. This decision reinforces the robustness of at-will employment, making it more difficult for employees to claim wrongful discharge unless their conduct is tied to a specific legal obligation or a clearly defined and substantial public policy. Furthermore, the ruling provides a clear example of conduct that can support an IIED claim in the workplace, specifically, an employer intentionally placing an employee in a situation of imminent physical danger.
