REPRESENTATIVE VERDICTS/SETTLEMENTS

$1,000,000 post-verdict settlement in VanValkenburg v. Oregon Dep't of Corrections, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Nos. 17-35205, 17-35222, with significant non-monetary terms to benefit deaf inmates in the Oregon Department of Corrections.

$400,000 verdict in VanValkenburg v. Oregon Dep't of Corrections, 3:14-cv-00916-MO (D Or 2016) on behalf of a former inmate who is deaf and was denied effective communication and equal access to programs, services and activities while in custody

$475,000 settlement in Buckley et al. v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. et al. on behalf of the estate of a man who collapsed in parking lot because he was denied a disabled parking space

$165,000 settlement in Eichhorn v. Marion County on behalf of a woman who was denied workplace accommodations for her disability

$105,000 settlement on behalf of individual who experienced retaliation for engaging in protected whistleblowing conduct

$100,000 settlement on behalf of a minor with disabilities who was denied equal access in youth activities

Confidential settlement on behalf of a family who experienced national origin discrimination in their housing

Confidential settlement on behalf of a woman who was denied workplace accommodations for her disability and was retaliated against for taking protected leave

Confidential settlement on behalf of a woman who was denied workplace accommodations and unlawfully terminated due to her disability

Confidential settlement on behalf of a woman who was discriminated against in the workplace because she was a victim of domestic violence and stalking

SELECTED APPELLATE DECISIONS

Leggett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. (S066284) (Or Feb 1, 2019) (denying defendant’s petition for writ of mandamus regarding trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to change venue on grounds of convenience of the parties and witnesses)

McCormick v. State of Oregon, 294 Or App 197 (2018) (reversing trial court’s grant of summary judgment and holding that recreational immunity statute did not immunize defendant when plaintiff was injured while recreating in Lake Billy Chinook — waters subject to the public trust doctrine — because the public had a right to recreate in the lake and the state did not have authority to choose to either disallow or allow use of the lake)

Migis v. Autozone, Inc., 362 Or 300 (2017) (denying petition for review in wage and hour class action)

Brunozzi v. Cable Communications, Inc., No. 15-35623 (9th Cir. 2017) (amicus curiae) (internal complaints to supervisor constitute a "report" under ORS 659A.199 private whistleblower statute).

Johnson v. Gibson358 Or 624 (2016) (amicus curiae) (recreational immunity did not extend to City's agents or employees)

Thoens v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon, 272 Or App 512 (2015) (the trial court erred in excluding evidence in UIM trial that would have allowed the jury to determine that the driver who rear-ended plaintiff was underinsured)

Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., 357 Or 74 (2015) (amicus curiae) (reversing the Court of Appeals and holding that a landowner owes those who travel adjacent to its property the duty of ordinary care)

Gibson v. Owyhee Produce LLC, No. 12-35981 (9th Cir. 2014) (Dkt No. 38-1) (vacating district court's grant of partial summary judgment in ELL case)

Blachana, LLC v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 354 Or 676 (2014) (amicus curiae) (reversing the Court of Appeals and holding that BOLI did not err in deciding that an entity is a successor to a business if it "conducts essentially the same business as conducted by the predecessor.")

Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc., 353 Or 282 (2013) (amicus curiae) (holding that a prospective employee may bring a promissory estoppel claim or a fraudulent misrepresentation claim based on an employer's representations regarding a job even if the employment is "at will")

Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc., 351 Or 1 (2011) (amicus curaie) (holding that, in an automobile accident case where one defendant admitted fault, that evidence of that defendant’s intoxication was not relevant to the jury’s substantial factor causation analysis)