Grissom v. Escalante Golf, Inc.
3:18-cv-01621
D. Or.Jul 3, 2019Background
- Grissom worked as a bartender/server at Pumpkin Ridge (Apr–Oct 2017) and alleges she slipped and was injured on May 14, 2017; she filed a workers’ compensation claim May 15, 2017.
- Grissom alleges defendants retaliated for her seeking treatment and/or reporting wrongdoing: yelling, false accusations, schedule reduction, and constructive discharge.
- Grissom’s First Amended Complaint asserted multiple claims under Oregon statutes, including O.R.S. § 659A.040, § 659A.030(1)(f), and § 659A.199.
- Defendants moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(f) to dismiss or strike claims they contend are redundant or duplicative of other claims that rely on identical facts and statutory bases.
- The court analyzed whether differently labeled claims (e.g., hostile work environment, constructive discharge) pleaded with the same facts under the same statute create distinct causes of action.
- The court granted the motion and struck seven claims as redundant, allowing Grissom to proceed only on her First, Fifth, and Seventh Claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a “hostile working environment” claim under O.R.S. § 659A.040 is distinct from a retaliation/terms-and-conditions claim when based on identical facts | Grissom: hostile-environment claim represents the cumulative effect of retaliatory acts and is distinct | Defendants: the hostile-environment label merely duplicates Claim One under the same statute and facts | Struck Claim Two as redundant with Claim One |
| Whether claims under O.R.S. § 659A.030(1)(f) (opposition/complaint) are duplicative of a § 659A.199 whistleblower claim when based on the same facts | Grissom: § 659A.030(1)(f) claims are based in part on filing a BOLI complaint and thus distinct from § 659A.199 | Defendants: § 659A.030(1)(f) claims duplicate the § 659A.199-based claim because they arise from the same factual allegations | Struck Claims Three, Four, and Nine as redundant with Claim Five (§ 659A.199) |
| Whether adding a “hostile working environment” label to a § 659A.199 whistleblower claim makes it a separate claim | Grissom: Claim Six adds hostile-environment allegations to Claim Five and is therefore distinct | Defendants: same facts and statute; label change does not create a new claim | Struck Claim Six as redundant with Claim Five |
| Whether separately pleading “constructive discharge” under O.R.S. § 659A.040 or § 659A.199 creates distinct claims from other § 659A.040/§ 659A.199 claims relying on the same facts | Grissom: constructive discharge is analyzed differently (cites McGanty) and thus distinct | Defendants: § 659A statutes do not create multiple separate causes of action simply by relabeling harms; identical facts render the claims duplicative | Struck Claims Eight and Ten as redundant |
Key Cases Cited
- Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.) (motions to strike aim to avoid litigation of spurious issues)
- Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual allegations showing plausibility; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Sereno-Morales v. Cascade Food Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (D. Or. 2011) (interpreting § 659A.030(1)(f) as protecting discrimination/retaliation tied to protected class/status)
- McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532 (Or. 1995) (elements and analysis of constructive discharge in wrongful discharge tort)