Legal Moran wrote:
Are there any Oregon lawyers out there?
It looks like Cain's lawyers are hanging their hats on using the "discovery rule" and the date March 8, 2018 as the date Cain "reasonbly discovered" that Salazar's conduct was the cause of her injuries which manifested themselves well before that date -- lets not forget she returned home by the Fall of 2015. My understanding is that the discovery rule is applied only in the rarest of cases.
The Oregon statute of limitations for Tort Claims is two years. The 2018 date does not help with her those claims even if the discovery rule argument is successful.
As for her statutory discrimination claim, it looks like Oregon extended the statute of limitations from 1 to 5 years in 2019. Does this apply retroactively and does the discovery rule even apply to these type of claims?
The timer for filing of civil claims usually starts from the date the tort was alleged to have occurred.
That date is usually known and definite - for example, a claim for injury from a car accident caused by someone else.
Discovery in legal terms usually refers to a controlled process for obtaining documents to support the action.
In this case, what's referred to by "discovery rule" is a special circumstance when the complainant did and could only have reasonably known of the tort after the fact. For example, a hidden defect not plainly observable, causing loss, and arising from an other's negligence or intentional sub-standard practice/materials.
In this case, Cain was well aware of the material, contentious actions at the time -- but it's said their adverse impact on her could not have been learned of until much later, such as through professional counselling creating new awareness.
However, Cain was vociferously complaining about Salazar, Nike and how their supposed deleterious actions affected her as far back as 2018, so it seems unclear what the legal basis is for filing a suit so late.