Meyer v. State, 426 P.3d 89

Background

Plaintiffs Sarah Meyer and Martin Wooldridge, long‑time Oregon State Lottery managers who were in an extramarital relationship, were investigated by an outside DOJ‑hired investigator (Goldsmith) and DOJ attorney Tessa Sugahara; Director Larry Niswender placed them on paid administrative leave, later issued disciplinary letters imposing increased supervision, and allowed a public records release of an investigative report.
Meyer later filed an internal sexual‑harassment complaint against Niswender; Wooldridge alleged retaliation. DOJ conducted a separate investigation of Meyer's complaint. Goldsmith prepared reports and collected investigative materials that plaintiffs sought in discovery.
Plaintiffs sued the Lottery and several individual defendants asserting multiple claims, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims (equal protection, substantive and procedural due process, failure to train, and freedom of association), state tort and statutory claims (retaliation under ORS 659A.030 and Title VII), and intentional interference with economic relations.
Trial court dismissed most § 1983 claims and the intentional‑interference claim under ORCP 21 A(8), denied plaintiffs’ motions to compel Goldsmith’s investigative materials (treating them as work product), and later granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ retaliation and discrimination claims.
On appeal, the court affirmed dismissal of equal protection, due process, and failure‑to‑train § 1983 claims and affirmed denial of discovery and dismissal of the intentional‑interference claim; it reversed dismissal of the § 1983 freedom‑of‑association claim against Niswender and Sugahara (finding the right was clearly established in the Ninth Circuit) and reversed summary judgment for defendants insofar as plaintiffs’ retaliation claims rely on the disciplinary letters and the public release of the investigative report.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1983 claim for freedom of intimate association was sufficiently pleaded and defendants entitled to qualified immunity	Plaintiffs alleged investigation, suspension, discipline and publicity targeted their private association after workplace concerns proved unsupported	Defendants argued no constitutional violation alleged and, alternatively, qualified immunity because right not clearly established	Reversed dismissal as to Niswender and Sugahara: complaint states a cognizable intimate‑association claim and Ninth Circuit precedent (Thorne) made the right clearly established in that circuit, so qualified immunity unavailable
Whether § 1983 equal protection, due process, and failure‑to‑train claims were adequately pleaded	Plaintiffs alleged arbitrary disparate treatment, reputational harm and inadequate training/supervision	Defendants argued plaintiffs alleged only class‑of‑one treatment (no protected class), no protected liberty/property interest (only reputational harm), and no deliberate indifference in training	Affirmed dismissal: class‑of‑one in public employment fails (Engquist); no constitutionally protected property or liberty interest alleged; failure‑to‑train allegations insufficient for deliberate indifference (Connick)
Whether plaintiffs stated intentional interference with economic relationship	Plaintiffs argued onerous working conditions and increased supervision harmed economic relationship	Defendants argued plaintiffs alleged no economic injury, loss of salary, demotion, breach, or withheld benefits	Affirmed dismissal: Oregon requires injury to economic relationship (e.g., breach or rendered obligations more onerous); emotional distress or stress alone insufficient (Banaitis, Franklin)
Whether Goldsmith investigative materials (work product) must be produced	Plaintiffs argued factual work product is discoverable and waiver occurred when part of a report was disclosed	Defendants argued materials are work product prepared in anticipation of litigation and plaintiffs failed to show substantial need and undue hardship; partial disclosure did not waive subject‑matter protection	Affirmed denial of compel: materials are work product under ORCP 36 B(3); plaintiffs never showed inability to obtain substantial equivalent without undue hardship; production of one report did not waive work‑product protection for other documents
Whether summary judgment on retaliation claims was proper (adverse action and causation)	Plaintiffs argued investigation, paid leave, disciplinary letters (increased supervision), and public release of report were materially adverse and temporally connected to protected complaints	Defendants argued no materially adverse action and no causal link to protected activity	Reversed in part: genuine issues of fact exist as to (1) disciplinary letters imposing increased supervision and (2) public release of report—both can be materially adverse and temporal proximity plus other evidence permit an inference of causation. Summary judgment affirmed as to adverse acts that preceded protected complaints (e.g., initiation of investigation and placement on leave)

Key Cases Cited

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class‑of‑one equal‑protection framework)
Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (class‑of‑one equal‑protection theory inapplicable in public employment)
Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 726 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1983) (private off‑duty sexual conduct and intimate‑association protections against government employer intrusion)
Perez v. City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2018) (government employer may violate privacy/intimate association by investigating or disciplining based on private sexual conduct)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (failure‑to‑train § 1983 standard: deliberate indifference required)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two‑step: constitutional violation and whether right was clearly established)
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) (reputational injury alone not a protected liberty interest for due process)
Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation: materially adverse standard for protected activity)
Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank Ltd., 129 Or. App. 371 (1994) (Oregon law on required economic injury for interference with economic relations)