Harper v. Driven 2 Drive Leasing, LLC
3:25-cv-00002
D. Or.Apr 24, 2025Background
- Thomas Harper worked for Driven 2 Drive Leasing, LLC and was injured on the job in December 2022.
- Despite his injury, Harper continued to work for several days.
- When medically cleared to return to work in March 2023, he was terminated even though light duty work was available.
- Harper filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit, alleging he was fired due to his on-the-job injury.
- The case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Driven 2 Drive moved to dismiss the claim for failure to state a legally cognizable cause of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether firing for an on-the-job injury supports a claim for common law wrongful discharge in Oregon | Harper argues the wrongful discharge tort applies so long as firing harms an important community interest. | Driven 2 Drive argues Oregon law does not protect against firing solely for on-the-job injury. | Court holds Oregon law does not recognize this as an actionable wrongful discharge. |
| Whether Oregon law allows other circumstances for wrongful discharge beyond established categories | Harper claims the two recognized categories are not exclusive, citing broader language from Nees. | Driven 2 Drive contends only public duty or job-related rights protected by public policy qualify. | Court finds Oregon Supreme Court has never expanded beyond those two categories. |
| Whether statutory concern for workplace injury changes the analysis | Harper cites statutes as evidence of societal concern for injured workers. | Driven 2 Drive notes workers’ comp is a distinct and comprehensive statutory remedy. | Court finds mere statutory concern is insufficient to expand wrongful discharge. |
| Whether Harper should be allowed to amend the complaint | Harper requests leave to amend to allege more facts on the circumstances. | Driven 2 Drive argues legal theory is fatally flawed and cannot be cured by amendment. | Court denies leave to amend as amendment would be futile based on the law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or. 401 (Or. 2002) (describes at-will employment and exceptions for wrongful discharge)
- Simpson v. Western Graphics, 293 Or. 96 (Or. 1982) (Oregon's at-will employment rule)
- Nees v. Hock, 272 Or. 210 (Or. 1975) (Oregon Supreme Court’s foundational wrongful discharge opinion)
- Walker v. State ex rel. Or. Travel Info. Council, 367 Or. 761 (Or. 2021) (Oregon Supreme Court on the two categories of wrongful discharge)
- Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors, Inc., 346 Or. 628 (Or. 2009) (importance of clear legal sources for public policy in wrongful discharge)