Krisor v. Lake County Fair Board
256 Or. App. 190
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff applied for a Lake County Fair Board maintenance technician job in July 2008; he was not interviewed, Haffner was hired, and plaintiff learned of the appointment August 1, 2008.
- Plaintiff complained that the board’s hiring of Haffner and another individual violated conflict-of-interest laws; Haffner’s employment ended, and the board sought a replacement by March 2009.
- Plaintiff filed Krisor I against board members and then Krisor II against the board alleging retaliation for his 2008 protest; Krisor I was dismissed as time-barred, with appeal moot.
- Five months after Krisor I, Krisor II proceeded; the board prevailed on summary judgment arguing retaliation claim was precluded by Krisor I’s final judgment.
- The appellate court held the retaliation claim was not precluded because Krisor I and Krisor II involve different factual transactions and different relief, reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does claim preclusion bar the retaliation claim in Krisor II? | Krisor II should be barred due to Krisor I's final judgment. | Krisor II is a separate claim not barred by Krisor I. | No; not precluded. |
| Are Krisor I and Krisor II the same transaction or different transactions? | They arise from the same hiring-related concerns. | They arise from distinct events and motives. | Different transactions; not barred. |
| Do the public meetings claim and the retaliation claim involve the same parties and relief? | The same board entities are involved. | Different legal theories and relief. | Distinct claims; allowed to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krisor v. Henry, 256 Or App 56 (2013) (final judgment; preclusion analysis under ORS)
- Lucas v. Lake County, 253 Or App 39 (2012) (persuasive guidance on transaction-based preclusion)
- Dean v. Exotic Veneers, Inc., 271 Or 188 (1975) (transactional approach to 'same transaction' in preclusion)
- Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134 (1990) (describes claim preclusion principles in Oregon)
- State ex rel English v. Multnomah County, 348 Or 417 (2010) (expands on claim preclusion doctrine)