353 P.3d 1243
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Dosanjh worked as hostess/waitress at Ñamaste from Nov 2009–Aug 2010 (and later briefly), claiming 2,673 unpaid hours and wages.
- In Nov 2010 a $22,453.20 check was issued to Dosanjh (signed by owner Chand) but the account lacked funds and she never cashed it.
- Defendant asserted Dosanjh had been paid "under the table" by her husband and counterclaimed for conversion, alleging Dosanjh and her husband misappropriated cash (owner estimated about $100,000).
- Jury found Dosanjh was not entitled to unpaid wages and that she converted defendant’s funds, awarding defendant $100,000.
- Dosanjh appealed; the appellate court affirmed the conversion findings but reversed and remanded on the wage claim due to instructional error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing Special Jury Instruction No. 8 (unlawful deductions from compensation) | Dosanjh: instruction correctly states law, was supported by evidence, and was necessary to tell jury that conversion allegations/deductions do not eliminate wage claims | Ñamaste: no offset/deduction claim was pleaded or supported; instruction not applicable to facts | Court: preserved; instruction correctly stated law and was supported by evidence; refusal was error requiring reversal of wage claim verdict |
| Whether written request for instruction preserved error when court gave part of/incomplete instruction | Dosanjh: written request was sufficient to preserve instructional challenge | Ñamaste: more specific objection needed because court read part of instruction | Court: preserved for Special Instruction No. 8; Vanornum principles satisfied because the written request put court on notice |
| Whether Special Jury Instruction No. 5 (valid form of payment) should have been given | Dosanjh: employer must pay wages in a valid negotiable form; check and cash issues relevant to wage liability | Ñamaste: dispute over whether check or cash represented wages; instruction not necessary or unsupported | Court: declined to decide now; remand allows trial court to address if it arises again |
| Whether instructional error substantially affected Dosanjh’s rights requiring reversal | Dosanjh: overlap/confusion between alleged "under the table" payments and conversion could lead jury to eliminate wage claim improperly | Ñamaste: jury found conversion independently; verdict consistent | Court: given overlapping evidence and verdict form, there was some likelihood jury denied wages because it found conversion; error substantially affected rights — reverse and remand on wage claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 335 Or 130 (rule that a written request for an instruction generally preserves an instructional claim)
- State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 (preservation for instructional error tested by general preservation principles; requested instruction may put court on notice)
- Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co., 327 Or 99 (parties are entitled to instructions that correctly state law, are supported by pleadings and evidence)
- Purdy v. Deere and Company, 355 Or 204 (instructional error requires reversal when there is some likelihood jury reached legally erroneous result)
- Miller v. C. C. Meisel Co., 183 Or App 148 (limits on employer deductions from wages)
- Hammer v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., 242 Or App 185 (evaluate requested instruction in light most favorable to requesting party)