43 Trial Lawyer • Spring 2022 See Sheets 44 in excess of the damages that had been alleged in the complaint. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s ruling to allow plaintiffs’ post-trial motion to amend was harmless, even if assumed to be error, and that the trial court did not err by entering judgment on the consortium claim in the sum awarded. Misrepresentation by nondisclosure may constitute financial abuse of a vulnerable person. Neel v. Lee, 316 Or App 159 (2021); DeVore, P.J. The plaintiff was represented by Matt Kalmanson. The plaintiff made a plan with family members to combine resources to buy a residential property to live together. After closing, the plaintiff learned her family members had removed her name from the property deed. She brought two claims for relief —one for financial abuse of a vulnerable person and another for restitution due to unjust enrichment. The trial court entered summary judgment against her on both claims, ruling that the defendants did not take a vulnerable person’s money or property wrongfully and that no evidence supported a claim of unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendants wrongfully took the plaintiff ’s money or property interest where circumstances could be found to support a finding that financial abuse of a vulnerable person occurred through misrepresentation by nondisclosure. The Court of Appeals also held the plaintiff had presented a genuine issue of material fact whether a supposed contract failed for lack of essential agreement among the parties, thereby leaving defendants unjustly enriched and warranting restitution. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not preclude the enforcement of a generally applicable and neutral law, even where a person’s failure to comply with that law stems from the person’s adherence to faith obligations. Article I, sections 2 and 3, of the Oregon Constitution, likewise do not require a person be granted an exception from a generally applicable, religiously neutral law when the law burdens the person’s exercise of their religious beliefs. Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or App 138 (2022); Lagesen, C.J. The Bureau of Labor and Industries was represented by Carson Whitehead. In 2017, BOLI issued a final order concluding that Aaron and Melissa Klein, who operated the bakery Sweetcakes by Melissa, violated Oregon’s antidiscrimination statutes when, based on his religious beliefs, Aaron Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, Rachel and Laurel BowmanCryer, and awarding $135,000 in noneconomic damages to the BowmanCryers based on the denial of service. In its original decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed BOLI’s conclusion that Aaron Klein violated ORS 659A.403, which prohibits a place of public accommodation from discriminating based on sexual orientation, by refusing service to the Bowman-Cryers. The Court of Appeals also rejected the Kleins’ contentions that BOLI’s order violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 2018, the Oregon Supreme Court denied review of the Court of Appeals’ decision, and the Kleins petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider their case. The U.S. Supreme Court had recently decided Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S Ct 1719, 201 L Ed 2d 35 (2018), which involved a Colorado baker’s refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. There, the U.S. Supreme Court set aside a determination by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that the baker’s refusal violated that state’s anti-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=