M brought claims in Oregon well beyond the Statute of Limitations. After seeing this and other abuses by those in the judicial seat, I am taken aback that such a hard and fast rule is set aside, but it has been time and time again in this arbitration. The abuse of arbitrator discretion has continued. Let me take you through some of these events. R – summarydispositionMEMO
Mr. Z’s claim under ORS 659A.230 is brought pursuant to ORS 659A.885.
Actions under ORS 659A.885 are subject to the general one-year period of limitation set forth in
ORS 659A.875(1). Consequently, to be timely under the statute, Mr. Z should have
brought this claim no later than November 15, 2004. He did not do so. Not by a long stretch.
Mr. Z’s Wrongful Discharge claim was first asserted in his June 29, 2006
Statement of Claims, more that 28 months after his discharge. The tort of wrongful discharge is
subject to the two-year limitation for filing of tort claims, ORS 12.110. Consequently, this
claim was also untimely.
On June 30, 2006, Mr. Z filed with ASP a Statement of Claims in a case initiated
by him on that date, along with an Answering Statement With Counterclaims in the case initiated a year earlier by NDT. It was in those two pleadings, more than two and one-half years after his discharge, that Mr. Z first asserted any claims under Oregon law–though he still did not allege any violation of ORS 659A.230.
Not until August 17, 2006–nearly three years from the date he was first notified of his
discharge–did Mr. Z first allege a violation of ORS 659A.230, the claim his first lawyer
apparently intended to reference in the October 28, 2003 letter giving notice of the DOJ
complaint. Having shopped for both a forum and law unsuccessfully and in contradiction of his
Employment Agreement, Mr. Z thus belatedly filed with ASP new claims well outside the
statutory time limits for doing so.
And yet Mr. Crow allowed them to survive. And while I have evidence as to why Crow made that decision, I am not quite ready to release it. The decision on the Statute of Limitation issues should have been in our Motion to Vacate the award, but were overlooked by our legal counsel.
We are experiencing the same thing now. The efforts by Z to pierce the veil and other related actions were not timely filed and our motion on that issue is still pending.