|CALENDAR STATUS: Cancelled|
|John Miller v. City of Portland|
|Supreme Court Case 1|
|Montgomery W. Cobb, on behalf of John Miller, Randy Olson, Herbert Goss, Douglas Babcock, Henry Jackson and Michael Palin|
Harry Michael Auerbach and Franco A. Lucchin, on behalf of City of Portland
Statement of Issues:
|John Miller v. City of Portland (S061421) (A145318) (appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 255 Or App 771, 298 P3d 640 (2013)).|
Plaintiffs have been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, the City of Portland.
On review, the issues are:
(1) Does the term "required duties, " as used in § 5-306(a) of the Portland City Charter (PCC), mean "any tasks that the member could have been commanded to do at the time the member was actively employed, " as the Court of Appeals held?
(2) Does PCC § 8-104, requiring authorization of contracts by ordinance, apply to terms of employment, such as instructions, orders, promises, and terms implied by a long standing course of conduct?
(3) Does PCC § 8-104, requiring authorization of contracts by ordinance, bar the imposition by estoppel of terms of employment where the city is acting in its capacity as an employer?
(4) Is the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies available to the city where it gave only conditional notice of termination of benefits and failed to follow the administrative procedure set forth in the notice?
(5) Is there a genuine issue of material fact precluding the finding that the return-to-work jobs assigned to plaintiffs were in the same classification as the jobs plaintiffs held at the time they were injured or became disabled?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: