WRONGFUL TERMINATION DEMAND LETTER

Oregon Law

[ATTORNEY/FIRM LETTERHEAD]

[Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[City, State ZIP]
Tel: [Phone Number]
Fax: [Fax Number]
[Attorney Email]
[Oregon State Bar No.]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [recipient_email]

[Date]

[Employer Contact Name]
[Title]
[Company Legal Name]
[Company Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Re: Wrongful Termination of [Client Full Name]
Former Position: [Job Title]
Dates of Employment: [Start Date] through [Termination Date]
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION - ORS 40.190 (OEC 408)

Dear [Mr./Ms./Mx. Last Name]:

This firm represents [Client Full Name] ("our client") regarding [his/her/their] wrongful termination from employment with [Company Legal Name] ("[Company Short Name]") on [Termination Date]. Please direct all further communications to our office.

We write to demand immediate action to remedy the unlawful termination and to resolve this matter short of litigation. [Company Short Name]'s termination of our client violates Oregon law and exposes the Company to substantial liability.

I. OREGON EMPLOYMENT LAW FRAMEWORK

A. At-Will Employment and Its Exceptions

Oregon follows the employment-at-will doctrine. However, Oregon courts and statutes recognize significant exceptions:

1. Public Policy Exception

Oregon recognizes a broad public policy exception to at-will employment. See Nees v. Hocks, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975) (seminal case recognizing exception for jury service).

Protected activities include:
- Fulfilling an important public duty (jury service, voting)
- Exercising a statutory right
- Refusing to perform an illegal act
- Reporting violations of law

See also Delaney v. Taco Time Int'l, Inc., 681 P.2d 114 (Or. 1984).

2. Implied Contract Exception

Oregon recognizes implied contracts based on employer handbooks and representations. See Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald Publ'g Co., 576 P.2d 356 (Or. 1978).

3. Comprehensive Statutory Protections

Oregon has extensive statutory protections for employees, including:
- ORS 659A.199 (Whistleblower Protection)
- ORS 659A.030 (Discrimination)
- ORS 659A.203 (Discrimination Complaint Retaliation)

B. Key Oregon Statutes

Oregon Workplace Fairness Act (ORS 659A.030 et seq.)
- Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, age (18+), disability, family leave status
- Covers employers with one or more employees
- Broader than federal law

Oregon Whistleblower Statute (ORS 659A.199)
- Protects employees who report violations of law
- Protects internal and external reports
- 1-year statute of limitations for civil action

Workers' Compensation Retaliation (ORS 659A.040)
- Prohibits discrimination for filing workers' compensation claims
- Provides for civil action with compensatory damages

Oregon Family Leave Act (ORS 659A.150 et seq.)
- Broader coverage than federal FMLA
- Protects employees who exercise leave rights

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Employment History

[Client Full Name] was employed by [Company Short Name] from [Start Date] through [Termination Date] as a [Job Title] in [City], Oregon.

Employment Summary:

Our client was a dedicated employee with an excellent performance record:
- [Describe positive performance history]
- [Describe promotions, raises, commendations]
- [Describe any relevant achievements]

B. The Protected Activity / Triggering Event

On or about [Date], our client [describe protected activity]:

• Made a good faith report of violations of law under ORS 659A.199
• Refused to violate Oregon or federal law by [describe illegal act requested]
• Filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI)
• Exercised rights under the Oregon Family Leave Act
• Filed a workers' compensation claim
• [Other protected activity]

C. The Wrongful Termination

On [Termination Date], [Company Short Name] terminated our client, purportedly for [stated reason]. This stated reason is pretextual, as evidenced by:

1. Temporal proximity: The termination occurred just [X days/weeks] after the protected activity
2. Prior positive treatment: Our client had [no prior discipline / positive reviews / recent promotion]
3. Disparate treatment: Similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity were [not terminated / treated more favorably]
4. Shifting explanations: [Describe any inconsistent reasons given]
5. Direct evidence: [Describe any statements indicating true motive]

III. LEGAL CLAIMS UNDER OREGON LAW

A. Violation of Oregon Whistleblower Statute (ORS 659A.199)

[If applicable:] ORS 659A.199 provides comprehensive whistleblower protection:

"It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation."

Our client reported [describe violation] on [Date]. [Company Short Name]'s termination constitutes unlawful retaliation.

Remedies under ORS 659A.885:
- Back pay with interest
- Compensatory damages (including emotional distress)
- Punitive damages
- Reinstatement or front pay
- Reasonable attorney's fees and costs

See Sheets v. Knight, 779 P.2d 1000 (Or. 1989).

B. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

[Company Short Name] terminated our client in violation of Oregon's public policy against [describe the public policy violated]:

Source of Public Policy: [Cite Oregon statute, constitutional provision, or court decision]

Under Nees v. Hocks, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975), Oregon recognizes a cause of action when an employee is discharged for:
- Fulfilling an important public duty
- Exercising a job-related legal right
- Refusing to perform an illegal act

See also Delaney v. Taco Time Int'l, Inc., 681 P.2d 114 (Or. 1984) (refusing to sign false statement).

C. Breach of Implied Contract

[If applicable:] [Company Short Name]'s Employee Handbook and representations created an implied contract limiting termination to "just cause" and/or requiring specific procedures.

Evidence of implied contract:
- Employee Handbook provisions stating [quote relevant language]
- Personnel policies requiring [describe procedures]
- Oral representations by [Name] that [describe assurances]
- Course of dealing establishing expectation of continued employment

See Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald Publ'g Co., 576 P.2d 356 (Or. 1978).

D. Violation of Oregon Employment Discrimination Law (ORS 659A.030)

[If applicable:] [Company Short Name]'s termination was motivated by discrimination based on [protected characteristic].

ORS 659A.030 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status, age, disability, and family leave status.

Remedies under ORS 659A.885:
- Back pay
- Compensatory damages
- Punitive damages (in appropriate cases)
- Reinstatement
- Reasonable attorney's fees

IV. DAMAGES

A. Economic Damages

1. Back Pay

2. Lost Benefits

3. Front Pay

B. Compensatory Damages (Non-Economic)

Our client has suffered severe emotional distress:
- [Describe anxiety, depression, humiliation]
- [Describe impact on health and relationships]
- [Describe medical treatment sought]

Emotional distress damages: $[Amount]

C. Punitive Damages

[Company Short Name]'s conduct was willful, malicious, and in conscious disregard of our client's rights.

Under Oregon law, punitive damages are available for statutory claims under ORS 659A and common law wrongful discharge claims where conduct is particularly egregious.

Punitive damages: $[Amount]

D. Attorney's Fees

Under ORS 659A.885, our client is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.

Estimated fees through trial: $[Amount]

E. Summary of Damages

V. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

We demand that [Company Short Name] pay $[Settlement Demand Amount] in full settlement of all claims.

Additional Terms:
- Neutral reference (dates and position only)
- No contest to unemployment benefits
- Expungement of personnel file
- Mutual non-disparagement
- Confidentiality (terms to be negotiated)

VI. RESPONSE DEADLINE

Please respond within fourteen (14) calendar days, no later than [Response Deadline Date].

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we are authorized to file suit in the [Circuit Court for [County] County, Oregon / United States District Court for the District of Oregon] without further notice.

Causes of Action:
1. Violation of Oregon Whistleblower Statute (ORS 659A.199)
2. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
3. Breach of Implied Contract
4. Violation of ORS 659A.030 (Employment Discrimination)
5. [Other claims as applicable]

VII. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION

Immediately implement a litigation hold to preserve all relevant documents and ESI regarding our client's employment, performance, and termination.

VIII. CONFIDENTIALITY

This letter is protected by Oregon Evidence Code Rule 408 (ORS 40.190) and constitutes a confidential settlement communication.

Sincerely,

[Attorney Name]
[Title]
[Firm Name]
[Oregon State Bar No.]

Enclosures:
- Authorization to Represent

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

OREGON-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES (Do Not Include in Final Letter)

Key Oregon Considerations

• Oregon has very strong employee protections compared to most states
• ORS 659A.199 provides broad whistleblower protection - "good faith" standard
• Oregon employment discrimination law covers more classes than federal law
• BOLI is the state enforcement agency - 1-year filing deadline
• Oregon is a deferral state - 300-day EEOC deadline
• Attorney's fees available under ORS 659A.885 for prevailing plaintiffs
• Nees v. Hocks established broad public policy exception in 1975
• Oregon Family Leave Act provides broader coverage than FMLA

Venue Options

• Oregon Circuit Court (general jurisdiction)
• Federal Court (if federal claims or diversity jurisdiction)
• Administrative: BOLI for discrimination and whistleblower claims

Statute of Limitations

Key Oregon Cases

• Nees v. Hocks, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975) (public policy exception - jury duty)
• Delaney v. Taco Time Int'l, Inc., 681 P.2d 114 (Or. 1984) (refusing illegal act)
• Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald Publ'g Co., 576 P.2d 356 (Or. 1978) (implied contract)
• Sheets v. Knight, 779 P.2d 1000 (Or. 1989) (whistleblower protections)
• Moustachetti v. Oregon, 319 P.3d 1247 (Or. 2014) (employment discrimination standards)