 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flug v. University Of Oregon11/1/2000
Argued and submitted January 20, 1999.
ARMSTRONG, J.
Affirmed.
*Brewer, J., vice Warden, S.J.
Plaintiff brought this action for unlawful employment practices and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Plaintiff claimed that defendant violated ORS 659.425 by
"discriminating against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment * * * because she has a mental impairment which, with reasonable accommodation by the employer, would not prevent the performance of work for Defendant; and/or because Plaintiff has a record of such impairment; and/or because Defendant regards Plaintiff as having a mental impairment."
Plaintiff also claimed that defendant retaliated against her for her opposition to defendant's unlawful employment practices, thereby violating ORS 659.030(1)(f). Finally, plaintiff claimed that two of defendant's employees intentionally caused her to suffer extreme emotional distress. Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending, inter alia, that plaintiff had failed to give timely notice of her IIED claim as required by ORS 30.275. The trial court granted defendant's motion and entered judgment for defendant. We affirm.
Because the trial court decided this case by summary judgment, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion--in this case, plaintiff. ORCP 47 C; Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 408, 939 P2d 608 (1997). Plaintiff began working for defendant in 1984 in the University's Housing Department and eventually was promoted to Resident Services Supervisor, a position in which she had supervisory responsibilities. In 1994, plaintiff was diagnosed as suffering from depression and, beginning in August 1994, took leave from work in order to recover. Plaintiff returned to work in November 1994, although, on her doctors' orders, she worked on a restricted schedule. As of March 1995, plaintiff was still working on a restricted schedule.
In early April 1995, in the course of conversations with a co-worker, plaintiff commented that she understood the emotions of postal workers. Plaintiff's comment was apparently in reference to reported instances of postal employees who had committed acts of violence in the workplace. Plaintiff told her co-worker that she would never do anything like that, however, because she was not homicidal. In other conversations, plaintiff had told co-workers about her target shooting experiences and how, at one point, she was able to shoot pine cones out of a tree. Plaintiff's co-workers reported these conversations, along with other concerns about plaintiff's work, to plaintiff's supervisors. In response, Mike Eyster, the Director of University Housing, and Ron Tendick, plaintiff's direct supervisor, met with plaintiff on May 10, 1995. At that meeting, Eyster and Tendick presented plaintiff with a memorandum outlining what they considered to be plaintiff's options. The memorandum detailed a number of conditions that plaintiff was required to meet in order to continue her employment. The first condition was that plaintiff provide defendant with a " ull release from counselor and doctor to return full time and ability to perform all job functions."
Plaintiff understood from the memorandum that she would be fired unless she immediately presented Eyster and Tendick with releases from her doctors to resume full-time work with no restrictions or accommodations to her illness or recovery process. Plaintiff told Eyster and Tendick that she could not fulfill their demand because her doctors had not yet released her to work full ti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|