Nees v. Hocks
272 Or. 210, 536 P.2d 512, 1975 Ore. LEXIS 419 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer commits a tort when they discharge an at-will employee for a socially undesirable motive that interferes with an important public interest, such as the employee's service on a jury.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a clerical employee for the defendants, was called for jury duty in February 1973.
- The defendants stated they could not spare her for a month and provided her with a letter asking the court to excuse her.
- The plaintiff presented the letter to the court clerk but also informed the clerk that she wished to serve on the jury.
- When the request for excusal was denied, the plaintiff informed her employers that she would have to serve.
- A few days after the plaintiff began her jury service, the defendants sent her a termination letter.
- The letter stated, in part, that she was being terminated because she had, in fact, requested to be placed on jury duty against their wishes.
- A representative of the plaintiff's subsequent employer testified that one of the defendants admitted the plaintiff was terminated for serving on the jury.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued her former employers in an Oregon trial court for wrongful discharge.
- A jury found in favor of the plaintiff.
- The jury awarded the plaintiff $650 in compensatory damages and $8,000 in punitive damages.
- The defendants appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 an employer commit a legally recognizable tort by discharging an at-will employee because the employee served on a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Denecke, J.
Yes. An employer is liable in tort for discharging an at-will employee when the motive for the discharge is socially undesirable and contravenes an important community interest. The court recognized a new cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The court reasoned that while the general rule is that an at-will employee can be discharged for any cause, this rule has exceptions. Citing the importance of the jury system as established in the Oregon Constitution and state statutes, the court found that the community's interest in having citizens serve on juries is a paramount public policy. Allowing employers to fire employees for fulfilling this civic duty would thwart the will of the community and undermine the justice system. However, the court reversed the award of punitive damages. It reasoned that since this was a case of first impression establishing a new cause of action, the defendants could not have known their conduct was tortious, and it would be improper to punish them for conduct not previously declared actionable.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy in Oregon, creating a significant exception to the common law doctrine of at-will employment. The court signaled its willingness to define the contours of public policy by looking to constitutional and statutory provisions to identify fundamental societal interests. This case opened the door for future claims where employees are terminated for reasons that, while not explicitly illegal, undermine important public policies such as whistleblowing or refusing to commit an unlawful act. The court's refusal to allow punitive damages in a case of first impression also sets a precedent that such damages are generally reserved for conduct that the defendant knew or should have known was wrongful.
