Randy Hutton v. Jackson County, a political subdivision of the state of Oregon; JOHN VIAL

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANDY HUTTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JACKSON COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the state of Oregon; JOHN
VIAL,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-36135
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-03090-CL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Mark D. Clarke, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 9, 2012
Portland, Oregon
Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Randy Hutton appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to his employer, Jackson County, on Hutton’s claim for breach of
contract. We affirm. Even assuming Hutton had an employment contract with the
FILED
MAR 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
County providing that he could only be fired for cause, the record shows that the
County had good cause to discharge him.
Hutton is not a civil service employee whose termination would be subject
to procedural due process requirements. See Papadopoulos v. Or. State Bd. of
Higher Educ., 511 P.2d 854, 870-72 (Or. App. 1973). Accordingly, we review the
County’s action under the standard set forth in Simpson v. Western Graphics
Corp., 631 P.2d 805 (Or. App. 1981), aff’d 643 P.2d 1276 (Or. 1982). Under this
standard, a reviewing court “need only find that there was substantial evidence to
support the employer’s decision and that the employer believed that evidence and
acted in good faith in discharging the worker.” Id. at 808.
It is undisputed that Hutton received multiple reprimands for violating the
County’s vehicle policy and that he took firewood from a County park for personal
use at his home without permission. These undisputed facts constitute substantial
evidence supporting the County’s decision. Hutton does not dispute that the
County believed the evidence. To the extent he contends the County’s reliance on
these incidents is mere pretext, Hutton failed to set forth facts from which a
reasonable jury could conclude that the County acted in bad faith.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --