# Holien v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

> Oregon Supreme Court · October 23, 1984 · 298 Or. 76

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9628548

## Case

- **Full name:** HOLIEN, Respondent on Review, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Petitioner on Review, and BLASKO, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 23, 1984
- **Citations:** 298 Or. 76; 689 P.2d 1292
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Linde, Jones
- **Cited by:** 125 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9628548

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, in general, when a statute provides a new remedy but "shows no intention to negate, either expressly or by necessary implication, a pre-existing common law remedy, the new remedy will be regarded as merely cumulative, rather than exclusive, with the result that a…
- holding that an employee’s termination following his or her rightful resistance to a supervisor’s sexual demands or harassment was actionable in tort as a wrongful discharge
- applying general rule and holding that, even when employment discrimination statute and common law of wrongful discharge provide different procedures and remedies, statutory remedy and wrongful discharge claim may coexist in same complaint
- finding harassment statutes’ remedies inadequate because they did not account for injuries such as “anguish”

## Opinion text

*103 ROBERTS, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the majority with regard to the existence of the tort of wrongful discharge. I do not believe, however, that the statutory claim for employment discrimination is before the court and I would not reach the issue of statutory damages.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9628548. Public record. Not legal advice.