Attorney Fees Against “Untruthful” Oregon Guard Vacated

by Mark Wilson

The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a $30,000 attorney fee award against a prison guard, holding that her claims were not “unreasonable, frivolous, and without foundation.”

In April 2007, Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) guard Ronda Park discovered a set of unsecured keys, in violation of ODOC policy. “When she picked up the keys to make a security violation report, a male coworker, who was responsible for the keys, grabbed her wrist.”

Park filed a worker’s compensation claim and was assigned light duty. Following informal mediation, Park and the coworker agreed that they could continue working together.

The coworker was not disciplined.

Acting on an anonymous tip just days later, a local newspaper reporter contacted a food processing plant that employed ODOC work crews, about a male ODOC employee urinating in a drain.

The employee initially denied the allegation, claiming he had poured a soda bottle down the drain. He later admitted, however, that he had urinated in the drain. ODOC sent an apology letter to the plant’s owner but the employee was not disciplined.

Park was quickly fingered as the anonymous tipster and reassigned to the prison mailroom. She claimed the move “was stigmatizing and cost her the opportunity to work overtime and holidays.”

Park then filed an internal sexual discrimination complaint, challenging her reassignment and the failure to punish the male employees. ODOC dismissed the complaint.

While working in the mailroom, Park “was suffering some ill effects from estrogen treatment that she was receiving, which led to a discussion” with some female coworkers, in the presence of a male employee, “about breast discomfort.”

Park “asked one or more of the female coworkers to touch her breast to confirm that it was unusually swollen, and at least one of them did so.” A supervisor “chastised the employees and initiated a ‘hostile work environment’ investigation against” Park. She was ultimately disciplined with “a one-step pay reduction for six months.” After a union grievance, however, the reduction was withdrawn and replaced with a letter of reprimand.

Park was then separated from other staff to perform mail sorting duties. She objected, requested to be sent home, and was placed on paid administrative leave for several months during an ODOC investigation.

Park filed a whistleblower retaliation and gender discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). Substantial evidence of retaliation was not found, but BOLI “returned a determination of ‘substantial evidence of an unlawful employment practice’... related to ... gender discrimination.”

Park then brought a Title VII sexual discrimination and retaliation suit in state court. The court denied the Defendants’ summary judgment motion and the case proceeded to trial.

After Parks rested, the court denied Defendants’ motion for a directed verdict.

Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The court then granted the state’s request for a special verdict form concerning Park’s veracity. The jury found that Park was untruthful.

The court then granted the defendants attorney fees and additional costs and disbursements, declaring “this is a disturbing case of a plaintiff lying under oath in support of her claims.” The court found that Park’s case “was unreasonable, frivolous, and without foundation” and “an award of $30,000 in attorney fees is appropriate to deter future suits brought in bad faith.”

The Oregon Court of Appeals vacated the attorney fee award. “The BOLI finding of substantial evidence of discrimination and the trial court’s denial of motions for summary judgment and directed verdict mitigate against a conclusion that plaintiff's claims were unreasonable, frivolous and without foundation,” the court concluded. “Because there was evidence, independent of the testimony disbelieved by the court, that supported plaintiff's claims and would have permitted the jury to draw inferences supporting her claims, the trial court’s determination that plaintiff's claims were unreasonable and frivolous is error.” See: Park v. Oregon, 257 Or.App. 553, 307 P.3d 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case