Trout v. Umatilla County School District Uh3-Milton-Freewater
712 P.2d 814, 77 Or. App. 95, 1985 Ore. App. LEXIS 4329 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Employment Relations Board (ERB) has exclusive jurisdiction over public employees' claims for breach of collective bargaining agreements, precluding circuit court jurisdiction. For invasion of privacy, public disclosure claims require the disclosed facts to be private and not of legitimate public concern, while intrusion upon seclusion requires intrusion into a private place or affair. Outrageous conduct (intentional infliction of emotional distress) requires conduct so extreme as to exceed all reasonable bounds of social toleration, even in an employer-employee relationship, with mere lack of foresight or insensitivity being insufficient.
Facts:
- In 1981, plaintiffs Vann, Edwards, and Trout were employed as teachers at McLoughlin-Union High School, with Vann and Edwards also serving as coaches, and Trout having been a coach until 1980.
- On June 4, 1981, an end-of-year teachers’ retirement party was held at the Milton-Freewater Elks Club where plaintiffs and others were drinking.
- Plaintiffs left the party together in Edwards’ car and subsequently crashed into a cement abutment in downtown Milton-Freewater.
- Students from the high school were among the crowd that gathered at the accident scene.
- Edwards was cited for driving while under the influence, but was acquitted by a jury in November 1981.
- Reports of these events, including interviews with the school board chairman and school officials, were published by various media outlets, including the Walla Walla Union Bulletin and the Milton-Freewater Valley Herald.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Vann, Edwards, and Trout) brought claims against Umatilla County School District UH3-Milton-Freewater in circuit court for invasion of privacy, outrageous conduct, and breach of contract.
- The circuit court denied the District's motions to remove the claims from the jury and submitted all three claims to the jury.
- The jury returned general verdicts finding that plaintiffs had prevailed on all claims, assessing $75,000 in damages to each plaintiff.
- Umatilla County School District UH3-Milton-Freewater (District) appealed from the judgments entered on the jury verdicts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the Employment Relations Board have exclusive jurisdiction over a public employee's claim for breach of a collective bargaining agreement, precluding suit in circuit court? 2. Does a public employer's disciplinary action and related public comments concerning an employee's public incident constitute an actionable claim for invasion of privacy? 3. Does a public employer's actions, including disciplinary measures and related comments following a public incident, amount to outrageous conduct (intentional infliction of emotional distress) that exceeds the bounds of social toleration?
Opinions:
Majority - WARREN, J.
No, the Employment Relations Board (ERB) has exclusive jurisdiction over breach of collective bargaining agreements, meaning such claims cannot be brought in circuit court; no, the employer's actions and comments did not constitute actionable invasion of privacy; and no, the employer's actions did not amount to outrageous conduct. Regarding the breach of contract claim, the court determined that the Employment Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over unfair labor practice complaints concerning public employers, which includes contract and arbitration disputes under ORS 243.676 and ORS 243.672(1)(g). Citing precedent such as School District 115 v. OSEA and AFCME v. Executive Dept., the court concluded that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear the teachers' breach of contract claim. For the invasion of privacy claim, the court addressed two types: offensive intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts. It found no basis for intrusion upon seclusion because the party and accident were public events, not private affairs into which District pried. For public disclosure, the court emphasized that the facts disclosed must be private, not public, and not of legitimate public concern. Many of the plaintiffs’ complaints, such as the consumption of alcohol before the accident or the disciplinary actions, were public knowledge or pertained to the District’s public actions related to a public incident, not the plaintiffs' private lives. The court cited Humphers v. First Interstate Bank and Restatement (Second) Torts, § 652D to support that comments on public consequences of a public incident are not actionable. Finally, concerning the outrageous conduct claim, the court noted that Oregon law discourages a general tort of 'outrageous conduct' and requires an 'extraordinary' level of offensiveness that 'exceeds any reasonable limit of social toleration,' even in an employer-employee relationship, as established in Humphers v. First Interstate Bank and Hall v. The May Dept. Stores. The District's alleged breach of contract (disciplinary actions like probation, reprimands, potential placement on a reduction-in-force list) and its comments regarding the incident, while potentially showing a lack of foresight or sensitivity, did not qualify as 'aggravated acts of persecution' or reach the extreme level of conduct necessary to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, especially when compared to precedents involving deliberate threats or humiliating strip searches (Hall and Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc.). Therefore, the claims should not have been submitted to the jury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries for public sector labor disputes, mandating that breach of collective bargaining agreement claims fall under the exclusive purview of the Employment Relations Board, not circuit courts. It also sets a high threshold for employees to successfully claim invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress against their employers, especially when the underlying events occur in public or involve public employers. The decision limits employer tort liability by emphasizing that disciplinary actions, even if perceived as unfair or insensitive, do not automatically rise to the level of actionable torts unless they involve truly private disclosures or conduct that is extraordinarily extreme and beyond social toleration.
