老澳门开奖结果

The case asks whether he Oregon Constitution bars incarcerated individuals from recovering damages for lost prison job and training opportunities when prison officials breach settlement agreements with them. In April 2010, Arnold Huskey sued the Department of Corrections alleging medical negligence. This case was settled, and Mr. Huskey鈥檚 prison placement was changed in exchange for the DOC agreeing to refrain from retaliation. However, the DOC then used Mr. Huskey鈥檚 identity in prison training materials which portrayed him in a negative light. Mr. Huskey alleged that those actions amounted to retaliation, in breach of the settlement agreement, and resulted in a loss of prison jobs and training opportunities.

Under basic contract law principles, this theory of breach and damages is valid. When two parties agree on a contract, they create enforceable legal rights in the performance of the contract. If one side breaches, the other side can recover damages caused by the breach, so long as those damages were reasonably foreseeable.

But the Oregon Court of Appeals concluded otherwise. It held that damages for lost prison job and training opportunities are barred by Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution. That provision mandates full-time work or on-the-job training for incarcerated individuals, but adds this disclaimer: 鈥淗owever, no inmate has a legally enforceable right to a job or to otherwise participate in work, on-the-job training or educational programs or to compensation for work or labor performed while an inmate of any state, county or city corrections facility or institution.鈥�

The 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of Oregon filed an amicus brief with the Oregon Supreme Court arguing that the Court of Appeals鈥� interpretation is incorrect. The brief argues that, under contract law principles, Mr. Huskey does not need to establish an enforceable legal right to prison jobs and training in order to recover damages for lost prison jobs and training. He need only show that those losses were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the DOC鈥檚 breach of its prior settlement with Mr. Huskey. Thus, Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution is simply irrelevant to Mr. Huskey鈥檚 contract claim. The 老澳门开奖结果 amicus brief also explains that the Court of Appeals鈥� approach, if adopted by the Oregon Supreme Court, would discourage settlements and encourage needless, expensive trials because it would undermines the ability for incarcerated individuals and prison officials to enter into enforceable agreements.