Ryman

I. FACTS

Plaintiff Daniel Ryman was fired by Sears for excessive absences; at issue here is his absence from work on November 17, 2003. From November 14, 2003, through November 16, 2003, Ryman was on leave to care for his sick child, and this absence was not counted against him by Sears. Ryman had not received his upcoming work schedule before taking leave and did not know whether he was scheduled to work on 13902 RYMAN v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. November 17, 2003. He called a fellow employee, who incor- rectly told Ryman that he was not scheduled to work on November 17. As a result, Ryman neither reported for work nor called in an absence that day. He accrued the correspond- ing number of demerits pursuant to Sears’ attendance policy. This took him over the limit allowed by the policy and, shortly thereafter, he was fired. Ryman asserts that Sears vio- lated the Oregon Family Leave Act (“OFLA”), OR. REV. STAT. §§ 659A.150-659A.186, by penalizing him for an alleg- edly protected family leave absence.

The district court did not reach the merits of Ryman’s claim, because it ruled that OFLA does not provide a cause of action for retaliation, or for anything other than an…