The petitioner, a male employer, sought review of a final order of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, which found that the employer had created an intimidating, hostile and offensive working environment based on respondent’s gender, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.030(1), which provides, “(1) [i]t is an unlawful employment practice: (B) [f]or an employer, because of an individual's . . . sex . . .
Although the plaintiff had satisfactorily completed her firefighter-training year and had been highly recommended for advancement, she was found to have allegedly failed five final task tests and her employment was terminated shortly thereafter.
The plaintiff was employed for fourteen months by the defendant as a part-time receptionist. She alleged that she was subjected to repeated acts of sexual harassment by several male employees. The plaintiff also alleged that her employment was terminated in part as retaliation for reporting this sexual harassment to management. She brought a wrongful termination action against the employer, alleging claims of sexual harassment under Or. Rev. Stat.
The plaintiffs, Nearing and her two children, appealed the order which affirmed a grant of summary judgment to respondents city and police officers for failure to follow the mandatory arrest provisions of Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.310(3) for violation of a domestic protective order.
For the case In re Gohranson, the appellants (the State and minor children), sought review of a judgment from the circuit court, which found in favor of respondents, a mother and father, in the State’s action to terminate their parental rights. The Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment terminating the parental rights of father and mother.
In this case the relator-wife sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant circuit court judge to conduct a hearing on her petition for a restraining order and to prevent abuse, pursuant to the Oregon Abuse Prevention Act, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 107.700-107.730.
The claimant sought judicial review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board that denied her claim for unemployment insurance benefits after finding that claimant failed to establish that her belief that further stalking by a fellow employee would occur was reasonable. The claimant argued that the Appeals Board erred in concluding that she quit her job without good cause after being stalked by a coworker for several months.
