Oregon Court of Appeals Reinforces Legal Standard for Wrongful Discharge Claims

Quick Hits

• The Oregon Court of Appeals held that an at-will employee could not maintain a wrongful discharge claim where she did not challenge the legality of her employer’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate and failed to identify a job-related right enabling her to refuse compliance.
• The court affirmed that HIPAA did not prevent the plaintiff from disclosing her medical diagnosis to her employer, as required by the vaccine mandate.
• The decision underscores that wrongful discharge claims are narrow.

Background

Christina K. Trumper worked for Women’s Healthcare Associates, LLC, (WHA) as an accounts receivable clerk in 2021. That same year, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) promulgated a rule requiring all healthcare personnel working in healthcare settings to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or provide documentation to establish a medical or religious exemption. Under that rule, a medical exemption had to be corroborated by a medical provider certifying that the person seeking the exemption had a physical or mental impairment based on a specified medical diagno­sis that limited the person’s ability to be vaccinated. Healthcare employers were also permitted to require more restrictive requirements for vaccinations under the rule, including requiring vaccination of all employees whether or not they worked in a healthcare setting.

Trumper was subject to the vaccine mandate, but she notified WHA that she intended to apply for a medical exemption. However, when Trumper submitted her paperwork, she failed to specify the medical condition that formed the basis for her medical exemption request. Rather than explaining how Trumper’s medical condition impacted her ability to be vaccinated, her healthcare provider simply wrote: “HIPAA protected info.” WHA informed Trumper that it was denying her medical exemption due to the lack of required documentation. When Trumper did not respond and failed to comply with WHA’s vaccination mandate, WHA terminated her employment. Trumper then sued WHA for wrongful discharge alleging that WHA terminated her employment in violation of public policy.

The Court’s Decision

The Oregon Supreme Court has previously held that at-will employees may bring wrongful discharge claims only in two circumstances: (1) when the employee is discharged for fulfilling a public duty or important societal obligation, or (2) when the employee is discharged for exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy. Trumper did not challenge the legality of the vaccine mandate, but she instead argued that she was entitled under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and ORS 192.553 (concerning protected health information) to refuse to disclose the medical basis for her exemption request to WHA. She argued that invocation of HIPAA’s protections reflected her fulfillment of a public duty or an important public policy.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Trumper’s arguments because she did not challenge the lawfulness of the OHA vaccine mandate rule, and she could not claim she was unlawfully discharged for fulfilling a public duty by willfully disregarding that law. Trumper also failed to identify a job-related right that allowed her to ignore the law. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s determination that WHA could require Trumper to receive a vaccination although she worked remotely, because the OHA rule allowed WHA to implement a more restrictive vaccine requirement to include employees who did not work in a healthcare setting.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that because HIPAA generally precludes covered entities (including healthcare providers) from disclosing protected health information but allows an exception for disclosure with the consent of the individual, HIPAA did not prevent Trumper from disclosing her medical diagnosis to her employer in compliance with the vaccine mandate. The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in WHA’s favor.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Although the OHA vaccine mandate is no longer in effect, this case is a helpful demonstration of how Oregon courts analyze the tort of wrongful discharge. The Oregon Court of Appeals in Trumper v. Women’s Healthcare Associates, LLC, rejected Trumper’s arguments that she had fulfilled a public duty where HIPAA allowed her to refuse to disclose her medical information to her employer. The court reasoned that Trumper had not fulfilled a public duty because she did not challenge the legality of the underlying law requiring the medical disclosure. Wrongful discharge, whether for allegedly fulfilling a public duty or for exercising a job-related right, is a narrow claim. The appellate court’s decision underscores that fact. 

Ogletree Deakins’ Portland (OR) office will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the COVID-19/Coronavirus, Healthcare, and Oregon blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts