Oregon Prisoners Can Now Seek Economic Damages for Future Lost Income More Easily
On January 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of Oregon held that prisoners seeking to state a claim for economic damages in the form of future lost income need not plead an “enforceable right” to future employment and that the lack of a legal right to employment is not an automatic preclusion to such a claim.
Prisoner Arnold R. Huskey sued the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) and others for breach of contract and civil rights violations. Among other things, Huskey sought damages based on lost future wages and employment opportunities. Years prior, Huskey sued DOC and obtained a settlement agreement that purportedly involved DOC orally agreeing not to retaliate against Huskey.
The settlement was the contract underlying the breach of contract action. The breach was based on DOC allegedly violating its oral promise by creating, without Huskey’s permission, training videos that included footage of him and portrayed him in a negative manner. As a result, Huskey suffered $11,640 in economic damages due to DOC officials denying him job assignments, training, and other income-generating opportunities.
The trial court accepted the defendant’s argument to dismiss the action, finding that economic damages could not be pleaded by Huskey because Article I, section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution provides that “no inmate has a legally enforceable right to a job or to otherwise participate in work… or to compensation for work or labor performed while an inmate.” The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court granted Huskey’s petition for review.
The appellate court relied on the Constitutional provision to find Huskey could not state a claim. The Oregon Supreme Court, however, eschewed the Constitutional argument in lieu of common law arguments. The Court found that Huskey pleaded facts to support claims for breach of contract and lost future income. Precedent, the Court wrote, “reject[s] the contention that a lack of a ‘right’ to future employment is fatal to a claim alleging economic damages based on future earnings.”
In Tadsen v. Praegitzer Industries, Inc., 928 P.2d 980 (1996), the Court held that “[a]t-will employment may be a factor that bears on whether the proof is sufficient in a particular case, but the right to terminate someone’s employment does not establish as a matter of law that an employee cannot prove the existence of front pay damages.” That holding was subsequently reiterated in the context of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. See: Cocchiara v Lithia Motors, Inc., 297 P.3d 1277 (2013).
Therefore, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that Article I, section 41(3) places prisoners “in no different a position than that of the at-will employment status of most Oregonians.” While the Constitutional provision “may be a factor that bears on whether [Huskey] can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that [DOC]’s alleged retaliation against him caused his loss of future income, [ ] the lack of a right to employment does not establish, as a matter of law, that [Huskey] cannot prove economic damages in the form of lost wages.” Hence, it was an error for the trial court to dismiss Huskey’s complaint.
The decision of the Court of Appeals was thus partially reversed and the case remanded. Before the Court, Huskey was represented by Portland attorney Edward A. Piper of Angeli Law Group LLC. See: Huskey v. Or. Dep’t of Corr., 564 P.3d 142 (2025)
Related legal case
Huskey v. Or. Dep’t of Corr.
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 564 P.3d 142 (2025) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |