Koller v. Schmaing
254 Or. App. 115
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Schmaing, a Pet Clinic receptionist, was discharged in 2004 after refusing to sign a false declaration allegedly prepared by Roller.
- Schmaing alleged wrongful discharge, among other claims, against Roller and Pet Clinic; Roller defended pro se, with Ms. Roller representing both Roller and Pet Clinic.
- The trial produced a verdict: Roller awarded on his claims; Schmaing awarded $64,360 on wrongful discharge against Pet Clinic; Roller and Pet Clinic later sought various judgments and corrections.
- Multiple general judgments and two “corrected” judgments followed, with naming of judgment debtors evolving over time (notably omitting Roller initially on the counterclaim).
- This appeal centers on (a) whether the third corrected judgment could be entered during an ongoing appeal, (b) whether Roller should have been named as a judgment debtor in the original judgment, (c) whether the directed verdict denial on wrongful discharge was correct, and (d) whether Roller’s pro se right was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to enter third corrected judgment | Koller and Pet Clinic contend ORCP 71 C could not modify a pending judgment during appeal. | Schmaing asserts the court validly used inherent authority to correct the judgment. | Third corrected judgment vacated; trial court lacked ORCP 71 C jurisdiction during the appeal. |
| Original judgment should name Roller as debtor | Roller seeks naming as debtor on the wrongful discharge counterclaim. | Pet Clinic argues Roller was not properly joined as an individual party. | Trial court erred in omitting Roller as a judgment debtor in the original judgment. |
| Directed verdict on wrongful discharge | Wrongful discharge lacked public duty; directed verdict should have been granted. | Schmaing contends discharge was for public-duty whistleblowing and reporting misconduct. | No reversible error; the discharge claim involved an important public duty and denial of directed verdict was proper. |
| Roller’s right to self-representation | N/A | Roller contends denial of self-representation was error and prejudicial. | denial of self-representation was not reversible error because no cognizable prejudice was shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Love v. Polk County Fire Dist., 209 Or. App. 474 (Or. App. 2006) (whistleblowing and reporting health-safety violations can be an important public duty)
- McQuary v. Bel Air Convalescent Home, Inc., 69 Or. App. 107 (Or. App. 1984) (reporting abuse to health division can support a wrongful discharge claim)
- Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors, Inc., 346 Or. 628 (Or. 2009) (reversing wrongful-discharge on whistleblowing theory where no proper target of report existed)
- Handam v. Wilsonville Holiday Partners, LLC, 225 Or. App. 442 (Or. App. 2009) (no important public duty found where no statutory reporting obligation existed)
- Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or. 210 (Or. 1975) (public duties and reporting may underlie wrongful discharge claims)