Lucas v. Lake County, 253 Or. App. 39

Plaintiff Stephen Lucas was terminated as a deputy sheriff sergeant and jail manager in Lake County, Oregon, on April 28, 2005, with no stated reason at termination.
Lucas filed a federal action in July 2006 seeking ADA relief and asserting related state-law claims, including unlawful employment practices and defamation; discovery and joinder were contentious, with limits on adding new claims.
In federal court, Lucas sought to amend to include common-law wrongful discharge and blacklisting claims; the court indicated it would not extend discovery or permit new claims in that action.
On April 27, 2007, the federal court granted summary judgment on all federal and some state claims; the defamation claim was barred by absolute privilege, and the plaintiff did not obtain relief on the other state-law theories in that forum.
Lucas filed this state court action on April 27, 2007, alleging blacklisting under ORS 659.805 and common-law wrongful discharge, based on post-termination communications and disclosures.
After federal judgment, the trial court held that claim preclusion barred the blacklisting claim but not the wrongful discharge claim; it then denied judgment on the pleadings as to wrongful discharge, but later granted judgment on the pleadings for wrongful discharge and the complaint was dismissed against Lucas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does claim preclusion bar blacklisting claim?	Blacklisting arises from post-termination acts; not same transaction as defamation.	Same transaction; could have been joined; restatement rule precludes.	Blacklisting not barred; same-transaction test fails; remand for merits.
Does claim preclusion bar wrongful discharge claim?	Wrongful discharge arose from different facts; could not have been litigated in federal action due to discovery limits.	Should have been raised in federal action; exception not applicable.	Exceptional preclusion applies; not barred; submission on remand.
Does Ram II exception to preclusion apply for wrongful discharge?	Federal court clearly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; thus exception applies.	The exception should not apply; federal court would have exercised discretion.	Yes, exception applies; preclusion not bar wrongful discharge.
Was the wrongful discharge claim properly dismissed on a judgment on the pleadings for lack of an important public duty?	Sheriff and deputy duties create an important public duty; termination contravened that duty.	Lamson requires a statutory/constitutional basis; no explicit public duty identified.	Court erred; plaintiff adequately alleged an important public duty; remand for trial on the wrongful discharge claim.

Ram II, 346 Or 215 (Or. 2009) (rests on Restatement §25 comment e; exception to preclusion when federal court would have declined jurisdiction)
Ram I, 215 Or App 449 (Or. App. 2007) (initial Ram decision applying transactional approach to claim preclusion)
Aguirre v. Albertson’s, Inc., 201 Or App 31 (Or. App. 2005) (federal judgment preclusion governed by state law; transactional approach)
Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134 (Or. 1990) (expansion of transactional approach to claim preclusion)
Headwaters, Inc. v. U. S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2005) (transactional approach in federal context)
Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors, Inc., 346 Or 628 (Or. 2009) (public policy duty requirement for wrongful discharge analysis)
Huber v. Dept. of Education, 235 Or App 230 (Or. App. 2010) (definition and discovery of important public duty in policy-based wrongful discharge claims)
Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or 401 (Or. 2002) (public policy limitations on private security wrongful discharge claims)
Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474 (Or. App. 2006) (statutory basis for policies supporting public duties)