## Facts

- Vickie Nees worked as a clerical employee for Hocks Laboratories beginning in 1971.
- In February 1973, Nees received a subpoena for jury service and informed her employer.
- The employer told Nees she could not be gone for a month and provided a letter asking the court to excuse her from jury duty.
- Nees presented the letter to the court clerk, stated she wanted to serve, and was not excused.
- Nees returned to work and told the employer she would have to serve at least two weeks, without disclosing that she had expressed a desire to serve.
- After beginning jury duty, Nees received a termination letter stating it had been brought to the employer’s attention that she “requested to be placed on Jury Duty”; the letter also cited work-performance dissatisfaction.
- Evidence permitted the jury to find the stated performance reasons were pretextual, including testimony that a defendant said Nees “was terminated because she went on jury duty.”
- Nees testified she suffered emotional distress from the discharge; she obtained other employment shortly after completing jury duty at a higher salary.
- A jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer commits a tort by discharging an at-will employee for serving, or insisting on serving, on jury duty.
2. Whether punitive damages may be awarded when, at the time of discharge, Oregon had not previously recognized tort liability for firing an employee for jury service.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed the compensatory damages award and reversed the punitive damages award.
- The court held that discharging an employee for serving on a jury can be tortious because it interferes with an important public interest.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court held there was evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the discharge was motivated by jury service.
- The court held punitive damages were not warranted because the defendants could not reasonably have known, at the time, that such a discharge was actionable in tort.

## Legal Principles

- Although at-will employment generally permits discharge for any reason, an employer may incur tort liability when the discharge contravenes public policy or interferes with an important community interest.
- Jury service is a significant public duty, and the community has a strong interest in maintaining the integrity and functioning of the jury system.
- Appellate review of a jury verdict is deferential; if there is evidence supporting the verdict, the court will not reweigh the evidence.
- Punitive damages require a level of culpability beyond mere liability; they are inappropriate where the legal duty was not reasonably knowable at the time of the conduct.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a public-policy-based tort claim for terminating an at-will employee because she served on a jury, affirmed compensatory damages supported by evidence of wrongful motive and emotional distress, and reversed punitive damages because the defendants lacked reasonable notice that the conduct was tortious when it occurred.


Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or. 210, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975)