51 Trial Lawyer • Winter 2023 tration award. Therefore, the court concluded, the Legislature’s intent was consistent with the RUAA drafters’ intent and the “manifest disregard of the law” standard is not a part of ORS 36.705(1)(d). Accordingly, the court did not inquire into whether, if the standard was cognizable in Oregon, the employer had shown that the arbitrators violated that standard in this case. Trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ wage claims against individual defendants acting on behalf of restaurant LLCs in class action proceeding. Allison v. Dolich, 321 Or App 721 (2022), Egan, J. Jon Egan represented the plaintiff. In this wage and hour class action brought by plaintiffs Allison, Rice and other server employees at two restaurants, the plaintiffs alleged individual and/or class claims against the restaurant LLCs, the restaurants’ owner/LLC member (defendant Dolich) and the restaurants’ general manager (defendant Josephson). Class claims primarily arose from the compulsory tip-pooling practice at the restaurants. Individual claims for retaliation and wrongful discharge alleged by Allison and Rice arose from their terminations after opposing the unlawful tippooling. Prior to trial, the judge granted summary judgments in favor of individual defendants on (1) claims alleging the defendants “abetted or incited” the restaurant LLCs’ violations of Oregon’s wage law, and (2) Rice’s retaliation claim alleging she was fired for refusing to sign the tip-pooling agreement after consulting both BOLI and an attorney regarding the legality of tip-pooling. The trial judge also dismissed individual defendants from a retaliation claim brought under Oregon’s wage law and granted a directed verdict to Dolich on the plaintiffs’ conversion claim against him. The jury ultimately found in favor of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the above-described rulings. The Court of Appeals reversed three not required. Lastly, the court concluded Rice’s consultation with BOLI did not constitute having “brought a civil proceeding against [the] employer” within the meaning of Oregon’s wage law, and the trial correctly granted summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim. In retaliatory discharge case, “cat’s paw” jury instruction was proper but was erroneously stated too broadly. Crosbie v. Asante, 322 Or App 250 (2022), Kamins, J. Mark Lansing and AndrewWilson represented the plaintiff. The plaintiff nurse in this wrongful discharge action was terminated by the defendant hospital after complaining about safety issues among nursing staff hired by Asante following its acquisition of the hospital in 2013. The plaintiff’s claims of unlawful retaliation and safety-specific retaliatory discharge were tried to a jury, and it was requested the jury be given a “cat’s paw” of those four rulings. The court concluded that summary judgment was improper regarding the claim against Dolich and Josephson for “abetting and inciting” violations of Oregon law. Under the relevant statutes, aiding and abetting liability is imposed on “any person” who facilitates unlawful employment practices, including persons acting on behalf of a business entity and not on behalf of themselves. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs’ pleading, when properly construed, had sufficiently alleged a retaliation claim against all defendants and that the trial court erred in dismissing that claim against the individual defendants. The court also determined the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict to Dolich on the plaintiffs’ conversion claim. The trial “evidence permitted a jury finding that Dolich exercised control so as to deprive plaintiffs of tip money to which they were lawfully entitled” and his physical possession of those funds was See Sheets 52
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==