Kelley v. Washington County

“For a discrimination claim, the inquiry is whether a jury could have reasonably found that defendant discriminated against plaintiff.” Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 230 Or App 715, 717, 218 P3d 42 (2009); “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, affording him every reasonable inference that can be drawn from it.” Wheeler v. LaViolette, 129 Or App 57, 60, 877 P2d 665 (1994). “[The Court] must “deem plaintiff’s testimony to be true.” Crawford v. Cobbs & Mitchell Co., 121 Or 628, 643, 257 P 16 (1927).

Plaintiff, a community corrections specialist at Washington County Community Corrections Center and Washington County, appealed a judgment dismissing his discrimination claim against his former employer and the county. Plaintiff argued that he was terminated because of his disability of obesity. In response, Defendants argued that plaintiff was discharged not for obesity, but because of his inability to perform essential functions, such as running in response to an emergency. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s findings that running in response to emergencies was an essential function of the job, and, that plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that he was able to perform that function.  “For a discrimination claim, the inquiry is whether a jury could have reasonably found that defendant discriminated against plaintiff.” Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 230 Or App 715, 717, 218 P3d 42 (2009); “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, affording him every reasonable inference that can be drawn from it.” Wheeler v. LaViolette, 129 Or App 57, 60, 877 P2d 665 (1994). “[The Court] must “deem plaintiff’s testimony to be true.” Crawford v. Cobbs & Mitchell Co., 121 Or 628, 643, 257 P 16 (1927). The Court of appeals held the trial court did not err, as a matter of law, in finding that running is an essential part of plaintiff’s job. The Court of Appeals also held that the trial court did err in granting defendant’s motion for directed verdict because plaintiff presented evidence to support his claim that he may be capable of performing that function and it is ultimately a question for the jury. Reversed and remanded.