490 P.3d 166
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff, a registered nurse, injured her back at work while employed by Mercy Health and sought workers’ compensation and medical leave.
- Mercy Health refused reemployment consistent with restrictions and administratively separated plaintiff after she exhausted medical leave; Reed Group (benefits administrator) told plaintiff she was ineligible for leave because her employment had been terminated.
- Plaintiff sued Mercy Health for violations of ORS 659A.046, ORS 659A.112, and ORS 659A.183, and sued Reed Group under ORS 659A.030(1)(g) for aiding and abetting those unlawful employment practices.
- Reed Group moved to dismiss under ORCP 21 A(8), arguing ORS 659A.030(1)(g) reaches only employers and employees; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed Reed Group.
- The court of appeals reversed: it held ORS 659A.030(1)(g) reaches “any person” as defined in ORS 659A.001(9), not just employers/employees, based on statutory text in context, the 1949 original wording (which included “or not”), the 1953 nonsubstantive revision that omitted “or not,” and ORS rules permitting reference to prior acts to resolve ambiguities.
- The court also noted BOLI’s long-standing interpretation consistent with a broad reading, and rejected federal district court interpretations as nonbinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 659A.030(1)(g) makes aiding/abetting an unlawful employment practice actionable by any person or only by employers/employees | Hernandez: the phrase “for any person” is plain and, in context, allows liability for third parties (any person as defined in ORS 659A.001(9)) | Reed Group: the clause “whether an employer or an employee” limits the provision to employers and employees only | Reversed dismissal; ORS 659A.030(1)(g) reaches any “person” under ORS 659A.001(9); the 1953 revision removed clarifying words but did not change substantive scope; prior enactment and statutory context support a broad reading |
Key Cases Cited
- Chang v. Chun, 305 Or App 144 (2020) (standard of review for ORCP 21 A(8) dismissal)
- McLaughlin v. Wilson, 365 Or 535 (2019) (interpreting “any person” under ORS employment statutes)
- Chase & Chase, 354 Or 776 (2014) (text, context, and legislative history method of statutory construction)
- Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. City of Gresham, 359 Or 309 (2016) (use of prior versions and related statutes as context)
- State v. McQueen, 307 Or App 540 (2020) (courts give effect to legislative intent via statutory text and context)
- Blachana, LLC v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 354 Or 676 (2014) (limits on deference to administrative interpretations)
- Burley v. Clackamas County, 298 Or App 462 (2019) (state courts not bound by federal court interpretations of state law)
- State of Oregon v. Holland, 202 Or 656 (1954) (explaining nonsubstantive nature of 1953 statute revision)