determined the plaintiff was not entitled to an inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitor, because there was no evidence in the record which an inference could be drawn that negligence caused the light fixture’s cover to fall. Under ORS 659A.203, whistleblowing by a public employee must concern wrongdoing alleged to have been committed by the employee’s employer. Under ORS 659A.199, a plaintiff may rely on the “cat’s paw” theory to prove liability, and a report is protected where the complained-of wrongdoing involves a decision made outside the plaintiff’s day-to-day job responsibilities. McClusky v. City of North Bend, 332 Or App 1 (2024); Ortega, J. The plaintiff was represented by Quinn Kuranz. The City of North Bend hired the plaintiff to work as an IT manager for the Coos County Library Service District pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement. The plaintiff later told the city and the district’s director he thought the director’s plan regarding certain technology issues was contrary to law and he told two city library directors he thought the director’s plan endangered the security of the district’s data. The plaintiff also filed a complaint with BOLI. The district’s director then told a supervisor at the city she thought the plaintiff should be put on a work improvement plan. A superior at the city and district director then issued a notice of potential termination to the plaintiff and on the director’s recommendation, the superior terminated the plaintiff’s employment. The plaintiff sued the city, alleging claims for discrimination under ORS See Between the Sheets p. 58 57 Trial Lawyer | Summer 2024
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=