Holtz v. Chevron Stations, Inc.

Filing 77

ORDER: The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Evidence in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment 45 , DENIES Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Dennis Holtz 53 , and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony 70 . The parties have leave to raise these evidentiary issues anew as part of their pretrial motions in limine. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 23 and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 30 . Signed on 2/5/2008 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (See formal Order, 6-pages) (ecp)

Holtz v. Chevron Stations, Inc.

Doc. 77

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DENNIS HOLTZ, Plaintiff,

07-CV-237-BR ORDER

v. CHEVRON STATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. RALPH F. RAYBURN Rayburn Law Office 4905 SW Griffith Drive, Suite 105 Beaverton, OR 97005 [phone] Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID G. HOSENPUD SHARON BOLESKY Lane Powell, PC 601 SW Second Avenue Suite 2100 Portland, OR 97204-3158 [phone] Attorneys for Defendant 1 - ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

BROWN, Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Chevron Stations, Inc.'s Motions to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Evidence in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment (#45), Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Dennis Holtz (#53), Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (#70), Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#23), and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#30). This state-law employment action arises from Plaintiff Dennis Holtz's prior employment as assistant manager of Chevron store number 1123 in Beaverton, Oregon, from which Defendant fired him in November 2006. Plaintiff alleges he suffered on-

the-job injuries in January, February, and March 2005 and on October 27, 2006. Plaintiff subsequently filed workers' Plaintiff also

compensation claims related to his injuries.

alleges Defendant fired him because he invoked the protection of Oregon's workers' compensation laws. In response, Defendant

asserts it fired Plaintiff because of his repeated failures to comply with company policies regarding proper notice and documentation of workplace injuries. Plaintiff maintains,

however, he complied with company policies as he was trained to do. On January 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Multnomah County Circuit Court and asserted three claims: 2 - ORDER

(1) workers' compensation discrimination and retaliation under Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.040; (2) disability discrimination under Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.122; and (3) disability retaliation under Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.109. On

February 20, 2007, Defendant removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). In his Memorandum of Law in Support of his Motion for

Summary Judgment, Plaintiff noted he agreed by stipulation with Defendant to withdraw, in effect, all of his claims except for his claim for workers' compensation discrimination and retaliation under Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.040 for which he seeks economic, noneconomic, and punitive damages. Plaintiff and Defendant each filed Motions for Summary Judgment on November 13, 2007. Defendant also filed Motions to

Strike on November 27, 2007, and December 5, 2007, and filed its Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Testimony on December 10, 2007. The Court scheduled oral argument regarding the parties' Motions for February 1, 2008. After an exhaustive review of the

record and the Motions, however, the Court advised the parties that oral argument was unnecessary. The parties agreed the Court Having

should take the matter under advisement on the record.

completed its consideration of these Motions, the Court rules as follows: 3 - ORDER

1.

The majority of Defendant's numerous hearsay objections Much of the material Defendant objects to is

are not well-taken.

not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (i.e., admissions of a party-opponent) or qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule under Rule 803(3)(i.e., Plaintiff's state of mind). Moreover, Defendant's objections regarding the discrepancies between Plaintiff's deposition testimony and the Affidavits submitted in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment are based on differences of degree that go to the weight and credibility of Plaintiff's testimony rather than on the fundamental inconsistencies that require exclusion. The Court, therefore,

DENIES Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Evidence in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Dennis Holtz. Defendant may renew its objections to this

evidence in its pretrial motions in limine. 2. Defendant also objects to the proposed testimony of Plaintiff offers

Plaintiff's legal "expert," Phillip Lebenbaum.

this testimony as an "exposition of the workings of the [Oregon workers' compensation] statute." The Court notes legal experts

are not generally permitted to testify as to legal standards at issue in a case because it is for the Court to determine the law and to instruct the jury accordingly. The Court, therefore,

GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony subject to 4 - ORDER

consideration of the appropriate means of instructing the jury as to the applicable legal standards. The Court also will consider

any other proffers as to Mr. Lebenbaum's testimony at the pretrial conference. The Court directs the parties to confer Defendant

explicitly about the scope of any proposed testimony.

may challenge such testimony in a pretrial motion in limine. 3. The Court concludes the record reflects many genuine

issues of material fact exist as to, among other things, how Plaintiff was trained relative to Chevron's workplace-injury policy; when Plaintiff understood the "proper" procedure to follow; what, if any, direction Plaintiff received from his manager regarding how to report workplace injuries; and Defendant's motive in terminating Plaintiff. Viewed in the light

most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable juror could find Defendant's proffered reason for terminating Plaintiff was pretext to avoid a workers' compensation claim by Plaintiff. The

Court, therefore, DENIES the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff and Defendant. With respect to Defendant's contention in its Motion for Summary Judgment that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, the Court concludes Defendant's reliance on Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526 (1999), is misplaced. In Kolstad, the Court describes the standards for a

claim of punitive damages under Title VII for intentional 5 - ORDER

discrimination with malice or reckless disregard for a plaintiff's protected rights under federal law. Id. at 529-30. In any

Here, however, Plaintiff pursues only state-law claims.

event, to the extent Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to support an allegation of intentional discrimination, there is likely a jury question as to punitive damages. Stat. § 659A.885(3). See Or. Rev.

The Court, therefore, also DENIES

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. In summary, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Evidence in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment (#45), DENIES Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Dennis Holtz (#53), and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (#70). The

parties have leave to raise these evidentiary issues anew as part of their pretrial motions in limine. The Court also DENIES

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#23) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#30). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5th day of February, 2008.

/s/ Anna J. Brown ____________________________ ANNA J. BROWN United States District Judge

6 - ORDER