Julio Aguilar-Padilla was employed by Boydstun Equipment Manufacturing, LLC. During the pandemic, he took leave pursuant to an Oregon administrative rule requiring employers to protect quarantining workers. Boydstun fired Aguilar-Padilla, alleging he failed to quarantine correctly, while Aguilar-Padilla claimed he was fired for exercising his right to quarantine. Aguilar-Padilla sued for statutory and noneconomic damages under both federal and Oregon state employment laws. A jury found that Boydstun unlawfully terminated him and awarded damages, and the district court awarded full attorney's fees. Boydstun appealed the judgment and the fee award.
The panel addressed four main issues. First, regarding the scope of protected activity, the court reviewed de novo whether exercising rights under an administrative rule counts as protected activity under the Oregon Safe Employment Act (OSEA). The court reasoned that the OSEA's anti-retaliation provision protects employees who exercise rights afforded by statutes, and Oregon statutes require employers to comply with all rules and regulations prescribed by the occupational health and safety agency. The court concluded that the district court correctly found that violating the COVID Rule supported the retaliation claim, noting that narrowing the provision to only statutes would contradict Oregon case law. Second, the court addressed the scope of the right afforded by the rule. The court reasoned that the text of the COVID Rule plainly protected an employee's ability to take leave by requiring the employer to maintain a position, meaning dismissal during quarantine violated that right. Third, the court reviewed the jury instructions. While acknowledging the employer's argument that Instruction 14 was erroneous, the court found any error harmless because the evidence compellingly showed the plaintiff was fired for quarantining, not for failing to do so correctly. Fourth, regarding attorney's fees, the court applied a de novo standard to the legal standard and abuse of discretion to the award. The court agreed that while the claims were intertwined, some fee entries were exclusively devoted to establishing the state law cause of action, such as researching the private right of action under the OSEA, and those should be deducted.
The decision clarifies that administrative rules issued by state agencies can trigger anti-retaliation protections under the OSEA, expanding the scope of protected activity for employees. Employers must ensure that compliance with administrative safety rules is treated as a protected right. The remand on attorney's fees requires district courts to carefully apportion fees when state and federal claims are tried together, ensuring fees are not awarded for work solely dedicated to state law theories that are not necessary to prosecute the federal claim.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download