News & Insights

Recent Posts

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

WSHB Cannabis Attorney Finalist for "Lawyer of the Year"

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

WSHB Senior Associate Selected for 2020 Diversity Leadership & Mentoring Program

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

Navigating the Minefields in New York Labor Law

WSHB EPL Case Law Update: Baker v. Maricle Industries, Inc., et al.

March 28, 2017


A Federal District Court in Oregon recently held that a corporation’s president may face personal liability for aiding and abetting an unlawful employment practice and for retaliating against an employee who opposes an unlawful employment practice.

Plaintiff, Justin Baker, worked as a water technician for ServiceMaster Cleaning Specialists from August 2013 to October 2014. Baker had previously served in Afghanistan and had been diagnosed with PTSD after his discharge from the military.

Baker claimed that on October 24, 2014, he overheard a conversation between his project manager, Andrew McCabe, and ServiceMaster’s president, Scott Maricle, during which Maricle made offensive remarks regarding Baker’s PTSD. Later that day, Maricle and McCabe called Baker into a meeting, and he was either terminated or resigned during that meeting. Baker claimed that Maricle continued to make disparaging remarks after the termination of his employment.

Baker filed suit against ServiceMaster and Maricle. As against Maricle, he asserted causes of action for retaliation (ORS 659A.030(1)(f)) and aiding and abetting an unlawful employment practice (ORS 659A.030(1)(g)).

Maricle moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including that ORS 659A.030(1)(f) does not support liability for retaliation against individuals and that plaintiff could not assert a claim against him as a matter of law.

Aiding & Abetting Claim

ORS 659A.030(1)(g) makes it unlawful “[f]or any person, whether an employer or an employee, to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this chapter[.]”

Generally, employees with executive authority have not been held liable for aiding and abetting because they are acting on behalf of the corporate employer when they make employment decisions. However, the Baker court held that the facts of this case did not warrant that result. Here, the court held that there was a question of fact as to whether Maricle acted outside the scope of his authority by acting for his personal benefit, rather than for the benefit of the corporation. If Maricle acted outside the scope of employment, then he acted in his personal capacity, not as an agent of the corporation, and thus became a third party to the employment relationship. The fact that Maricle was the president of the corporation did not shield him from liability as an aider and abettor.


The court also held that Maricle could be held personally liable for retaliation under ORS 659A.030(1)(f). That section makes it unlawful “[f]or any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any other person because that other person has opposed any unlawful practice[.]”

The court rejected Maricle’s argument that the legislative history of ORS 659A.030(1)(f) suggested that the phrase “any person” should be interpreted to mean “employers.” The court held that the plain wording of the statute did not support Maricle’s argument, and Maricle failed to present “highly probative” evidence to support any other reading of the statute. On that basis, the court held that Maricle could be held personally liable for retaliation.

Why This Case Is Important

Executive decision makers typically rely on reports from managers, as well as their own observations and judgments, in making employment decisions. Based on the Baker court’s ruling, decision makers should clearly document the reasons for their employment decisions, making it clear that the decision is not based on any discriminatory animus and is not in retaliation for an employee’s protected act in order to avoid claims of personal liability against the decision maker.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2019 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required