Wolff v. Tomahawk Manufacturing, 689 F.Supp.3d 923

Background

Plaintiff James Wolff: long-time consultant and then employee of Tomahawk; signed a 2010 Confidentiality Agreement (2010 NDA); also involved with separate FOT/Formtec/Spherical agreements.
Wolff has a hypercoagulable disorder; Tomahawk previously accommodated him (first-class travel; breaks on long drives) and knew of his condition.
In Dec 2020 Wolff received a positive performance review with bonus and raise.
January 2021: assignments to Cargill (possible COVID exposure) and Standard Meat (quarantine dispute). Wolff complained about COVID-safety/quarantine guidance, sought written policy, and reported concerns to management.
Tomahawk soon “parked” Wolff (stopped assigning work), began termination discussions, and terminated him March 25, 2021 while proposing post‑employment restrictions and waiver terms.
Wolff sued for breach of the 2010 NDA, whistleblower retaliation (ORS §§ 659A.199, 659A.030(1)(f)), disability discrimination (ORS § 659A.112), and wrongful discharge; motions for summary judgment, to amend, to compel, and to extend deadlines were litigated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the arbitration decision preclude Wolff's breach‑of‑2010‑NDA claim (claim preclusion)?	The arbitration between Formtec and Spherical did not bind Wolff; the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over Wolff’s 2010 NDA claim.	The arbitration decision covers related disputes and bars relitigation (res judicata).	Denied: arbitration did not have jurisdiction over Wolff’s individual claim; claim preclusion does not bar Wolff’s suit.
Was Wolff terminated because of his disability (disability discrimination)?	Wolff: employer knew of his disabling condition and Weiss’s statements show health motivated termination.	Tomahawk: termination was for misconduct and poor behavior.	Denied summary judgment for Tomahawk: direct statement by Weiss plus timing and prior positive review create triable issues of discrimination/pretext.
Did Tomahawk fail to reasonably accommodate Wolff (PPE, remote work, 14‑day quarantine)?	Wolff: requested functioning PPE and remote options; informed supervisors of quarantine and inability to travel.	Tomahawk: never received a proper accommodation request and was unaware of need.	Mixed: PPE and remote‑work accommodation claims survive summary judgment; the claim tied specifically to a 14‑day quarantine (as a disability‑based accommodation) fails (partial SJ granted).
Did Tomahawk retaliate (whistleblower/ORS claims) for Wolff’s safety reports?	Wolff: his COVID‑safety reports were protected and were a substantial factor in adverse actions.	Tomahawk: reports were in bad faith or a pretext to retaliate; adverse actions followed for other reasons.	Denied summary judgment for Tomahawk: Wolff established prima facie protection and raised sufficient pretext/causation issues (timing, prior communications, and termination process).

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard on movant’s burden)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (evidentiary standard for genuine issue of material fact)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (assessing absence of genuine factual disputes)
Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised)
Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1992) (arbitral forum lacks jurisdiction where district court retained jurisdiction; res judicata inapplicable)
Wolf v. Gruntal & Co., 45 F.3d 524 (1st Cir. 1995) (arbitral jurisdiction depends on written submission/agreement)
Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (notice required to trigger accommodation duty)
Humphrey v. Mem. Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128 (interactive process obligation for accommodations)
Dominguez‑Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027 (single discriminatory remark can suffice to defeat summary judgment)
Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080 (application of McDonnell Douglas framework in disability cases)