Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council
367 Or. 761
Or.2021Background
- Kyle Walker, CEO of the Oregon Travel Experience (a semi‑independent state agency), implemented a new staff salary structure after a Secretary of State audit recommending greater transparency and a salary plan.
- Council members objected; Walker implemented salaries without prior Council approval (she had statutory authority to fix staff compensation) and a March 12, 2014 Executive Committee meeting was held without public notice.
- Walker sent a memorandum to Michael Jordan (head of DAS) alleging the Council violated public meeting law and exceeded its authority; the Council terminated her in October 2014.
- Walker sued: statutory whistleblower claim under ORS 659A.203(1)(b) and a common‑law wrongful discharge tort. The jury found for Walker on wrongful discharge and awarded $1.2 million; the trial court dismissed the statutory claim.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the wrongful discharge verdict (concluding reasonable‑belief was a question of law and Walker lacked an objectively reasonable belief) and affirmed dismissal of the statute claim.
- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals: holding (1) whether whistleblowing implicates important public policy is a legal question for the court and ORS 659A.203(1) supplies that policy; and (2) whether the employee had an objectively reasonable belief that the employer violated the law is ordinarily a factual question for the trier of fact; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether whistleblowing under ORS 659A.203(1) can supply the "important public policy" element of the wrongful discharge tort | Walker: ORS 659A.203(1) evidences a substantial public policy protecting public employees who report employer violations of law, and thus supports a wrongful discharge claim | Council: even if statute exists, Walker's reports did not further an important public duty because she misdirected the report and her disputes were governance disagreements, not legal violations | Held: Yes — identifying the public policy is a question of law for the court; ORS 659A.203(1) speaks directly to protecting public‑employee whistleblowers and can support the tort |
| Whether the "objectively reasonable belief" element of whistleblowing is a question of law for the court or fact for the jury | Walker: Reasonableness is a factual question for the trier of fact and, here, sufficient evidence supported the jury verdict | Council: Reasonableness is a legal question; Court of Appeals precedent (Miller) supports court resolution and Walker’s belief was not objectively reasonable | Held: Reasonableness is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury; the Court of Appeals erred treating it as a question of law |
| Whether evidence sufficed to let the jury find Walker had a reasonable belief that the Council violated law | Walker: Evidence (audit mandate, statutory authority to set salaries, DOJ advice re: noticing, Council chair instructions, and timing of complaint) supported a reasonable belief as to statutory authority violations and public‑meeting violations | Council: Any violation was caused by Walker’s own failures; issues were disputes over authority and budget, not legal violations | Held: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to Walker, a reasonable jury could find her belief objectively reasonable; directed verdict/j.n.o.v. were improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210 (1975) (recognizing wrongful discharge tort where discharge frustrates important public policy)
- Walsh v. Consolidated Freightways, 278 Or 347 (1977) (statutory remedies can preclude wrongful discharge tort when adequate)
- Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 (1978) (legislative recognition of public policy may support tort recovery when statutory remedies are inadequate)
- Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, 297 Or 10 (1984) (framework describing categories of wrongful discharge claims and focus on public duty/policy)
- Holien v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 298 Or 76 (1984) (statutory antidiscrimination remedies did not foreclose common‑law wrongful discharge when remedies were inadequate)
- Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or 401 (2002) (courts must identify public duty from sources of law that speak directly to the employee’s acts)
- Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors, Inc., 346 Or 628 (2009) (public policy must be tied to the acts the employee took; internal complaints may be protected only when linked to legal reporting channels)