Longhorn v. Oregon Department of Corrections

2023 WL 3602780 (2023)

From our private database of 47,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Longhorn v. Oregon Department of Corrections

United States District Court for the District of Oregon
2023 WL 3602780 (2023)

Facts

Ashley Longhorn (plaintiff) worked as a corrections officer for the Oregon Department of Corrections (department) (defendant) at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution (EOCI). Fellow officer Matthew Klimek sexually assaulted Longhorn. Klimek then began stalking Longhorn at work, watching her, leaving gifts, and calling and messaging daily. Longhorn reported both the assault and the stalking to EOCI’s assistant superintendents. EOCI forwarded Longhorn’s complaint to the police department for investigation and placed Klimek on paid administrative leave. Rumors about Longhorn started circulating at EOCI, suggesting that Longhorn’s allegations were false and that she had slept with Klimek for career advancement, was sleeping with other officers, and was part of a sex ring. The rumors were never made directly to Longhorn, but she heard about them daily from friendly coworkers. Longhorn lost the respect of many coworkers, several of whom stopped speaking to her, and the respect of prisoners, some of whom refused to obey Longhorn’s orders. Longhorn intermittently took leave from work because of anxiety and panic attacks. She eventually complained about the false rumors to the superintendent. However, human resources opted not to investigate because of the ongoing criminal investigation. Longhorn requested a transfer to the night shift to avoid coworkers. In March 2021, the charges against Klimek were dismissed. Longhorn feared that Klimek might return to EOCI. Also, she was continuing to suffer harassment and had no more available leave. Longhorn resigned in May 2021. She subsequently sued the department, asserting hostile-work-environment, constructive-discharge, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The department moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McShane, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 916,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,300 briefs - keyed to 1,000 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership