Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—D. Or.: Employee’s retaliation, economic interference claims survived employer’s motion to dismiss, (Apr 23, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employee alleged that the employer improperly interfered with his employment relationship with the competitor by prohibiting him from working on wind farms that it managed or operated.

An employer was not entitled to dismissal of an employee’s retaliation and intentional interference with economic relations claims, ruled a federal district court in Oregon. The employee was terminated after his team was faulted for “human error” on a repair project at a wind farm. However, on numerous occasions the employee had reported safety concerns to his superiors regarding the repair job. Thereafter, he went to work for a competitor but was banned by the former employer from working at any wind farms it managed, which caused the competitor to terminate him. On the other hand, the employer was granted its motion to dismiss the employee’s blacklisting claim, since it was based on a criminal statute that did not provide a private right of action (Mauze v. GE Vernova Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01800-MC (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2025)).

Wind energy industry. The employer operates in the renewable wind energy industry. The employee, an Oregon resident, was employed by the employer from 2010 until May 1, 2024. During his employment, he was assigned to work on wind farms in various states.

The employer determined that some turbine blades were improperly made and needed to be replaced. In early 2024, the employer assigned the employee to lead a team to replace blades at a New Mexico wind farm. In March 2024, the employee traveled from his home in Oregon to New Mexico to begin that work.

Replacement of turbine blades. The standard practice required to replace a turbine blade was the use of two cranes. For this project, the employer decided to use an “SBI Tool” to assist with blade replacement, eliminating the need for one of the cranes. The SBI Tool had never been used to replace existing blades, and the employee and his team were not familiar with it. In February 2024, the employee and his team were trained on the SBI Tool, but he later learned that he was given incorrect information during that training. Thereafter, the employee reported safety concerns to his superiors regarding use of the SBI Tool.

On March 9, 2024, the employee and his team began replacing a blade using the SBI Tool. They encountered several difficulties, including cracked blades. The employee met multiple times with his superiors and reported numerous safety concerns.

Fired. The employee was later informed that the employer was investigating the project. The employer faulted “human error” for problems. It was alleged that the employee and his team failed to perform a necessary “Lock Out Tag Out” procedure. On May 1, 2024, the employee was informed that his employment was going to be terminated.

Competitor employment. The next month, the employee found employment with one of the employer’s competitors. As part of his work with the competitor, the employee was expected to work on wind farms managed by his former employer. In July 2024, however, the employee was informed that he was banned from working at any site managed by the former employer. As a result, the competitor was forced to terminate the employee as well.

Lawsuit. In October 2024, the employee filed suit alleging that the employer terminated him in violation of whistleblower protection laws, illegally blacklisted him from future work, and intentionally interfered with his economic relations with the competitor. The employer moved to dismiss his complaint in its entirety.

Whistleblower claim. As an initial matter, the employee brought a claim for retaliation under Oregon’s whistleblower protection statute. The employer argued that the provisions of ORS § 659A.199(1) did not apply to it because none of the allegedly retaliatory conduct occurred in Oregon, and courts construe Oregon laws to prohibit their extraterritorial application.

The court noted that “‘the threshold question in a choice-of-law problem is whether the laws of the different states actually conflict.’ The proponent of applying a different state’s law has the obligation to identify a material difference between Oregon law and the law of the other state.” Here, the employer had not identified which law should apply, much less whether there are any differences between those laws. As a consequence, the employer was denied its motion to dismiss the employee’s retaliation claim.

Blacklisting claim. The employee’s next claim arose under ORS § 659.805, which provides that businesses may not “blacklist or publish” an employee they discharged “with intent and for the purpose of preventing such employee... from engaging in or securing similar or other employment[.]” In this instance, the court agreed with the employer that the blacklisting statute is a criminal law that does not provide a private cause of action. The statute made no reference to civil liability and instead provided a remedy through the criminal justice system. Accordingly, the employer’s motion to dismiss the employer’s blacklisting claim was granted.

Interference with employment relationship claim. Finally, the employee alleged that the employer improperly interfered with his employment relationship with the competitor by prohibiting him from working on wind farms that it managed or operated.

As an initial matter, the court determined that the employer failed to establish that its extrinsic evidence should be considered at this early stage in the litigation. The employer argued that the employee’s intentional interference with economic relations (IIER) claim failed because he cannot prove that it used improper means or had an improper purpose in preventing him from working on wind farms that it operated. Specifically, it pointed to a Master Services Agreement (MSA) between it and the competitor not to assign anyone who had been in its employ in the last six months to work on employer-operated wind farms.

However, the court noted that “generally, district courts may not consider material outside the pleadings when assessing the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)[.]” Where a complaint does not rely on the document to state a claim, “[s]ubmitting documents not mentioned in the complaint to create a defense is nothing more than another way of disputing the factual allegations in the complaint[.]” The employee’s complaint neither mentioned nor alluded to the MSA, and it was not central to his claims. Nor did the employee concede the authenticity of the MSA.

To state a claim for IIER, Plaintiff must allege: (1) a professional or business relationship; (2) intentional interference with that relationship; (3) by a third party; (4) through improper means or for an improper purpose; (5) causation between the interference and harm to the relationship; and (6) damages.

Here, the employee alleged that he had a professional relationship with the competitor as his employer, and that his former employer intentionally interfered with that relationship by banning him from working on its wind farms. He also alleged that the former employer used improper means by engaging in unlawful blacklisting and imposing a de facto non-competition agreement on him. He further alleged that the competitor was in direct competition with the former employer, and that employees with his skills “are in short supply in the labor market,” so eliminating him from competitor’s team handicapped its ability to compete with the employer. Finally, the employee alleged that the employer’s interference caused the competitor to terminate his employment.

Thus, the court held that the employee properly pleaded a claim for intentional interference with economic relations.

The case is No. 6:24-cv-01800-MC.

Judge: McShane, M.

Attorneys: Michael R. Seidl (Law Offices of Michael R. Seidl) for Sean A. Mauze. Joseph Cooper (Littler Mendelson) for GE Vernova Inc.

Companies: GE Vernova Inc.; GE Vernova International LLC; General Electric Co.

Cases: Retaliation Whistleblowers Discharge TortClaims Safety Procedure StateLawClaims OregonNews