Meyer v. Oregon Lottery

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Employment Law
  • Date Filed: 07-05-2018
  • Case #: A159376
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Shorr, J. for the Court; DeVore, P.J.; Aoyagi, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

“A government employer ‘can violate its employees’ rights to privacy and intimate association either by impermissibly investigation their private sexual conduct or by taking adverse employment action on the basis of such private conduct.’” Perez v. City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 857 (9th Cir. 2018).

Plaintiff appealed a general judgment dismissing their action against defendants. Plaintiff argued that they “had a right to associate with each other,” that “there was no state or Lottery policy against their association,” and that there was “no evidence that their relationship had ever disrupted the workplace.” Plaintiff further argued that the Lottery continued its investigation, suspending, and ultimately disciplined Plaintiffs because of their legal association. Claimants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that the complaint improperly alleged conclusions of law instead of ultimate facts. “A government employer ‘can violate its employees’ rights to privacy and intimate association either by impermissibly investigation their private sexual conduct or by taking adverse employment action on the basis of such private conduct.’” Perez v. City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 857 (9th Cir. 2018). The Court found that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ freedom of association section 1983 claim, but did not err in dismissing any of plaintiffs’ other section 1983 claims, or plaintiffs’ intentional interference with an economic relationship claim. The Court held that the constitutional right to intimate association protects government employees’ right to be free from impermissible investigations and intrusions into their private sexual conduct and that a government employer violates its employees’ right to intimate association by impermissibly investigating their private sexual conduct or by taking adverse employment action based on that conduct. Reversed and remanded as to plaintiffs’ section 1983 freedom of association claim and retaliation claims; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top