Background
Thomas Matteson, proceeding pro se, brought suit against LeafFilter North, LLC and several associated individuals arising from a dispute over his work installing LeafFilter gutter-guard products. Among the defendants were Sally Bloomstrom, a LeafFilter recruiter who had assisted in processing Matteson’s hiring paperwork, and Zack Hickman, a LeafFilter installation manager who assigned, organized, and supervised Matteson’s work. Matteson asserted statutory wage claims against both individuals under ORS chapter 652, alleging failures to properly itemize wage statements and to pay wages, and licensing claims against Hickman under ORS chapter 658, which governs licensing requirements for labor contractors in construction. He also sought declaratory and injunctive relief predicated on those statutes.
Hickman and Bloomstrom moved to dismiss under ORCP 21, arguing the complaint failed to state legally sufficient claims against them in their individual capacities. The Washington County Circuit Court granted the motion and dismissed the wage claims against both defendants and the licensing claims against Hickman, all with prejudice. Matteson appealed, challenging those dismissals. A companion nonprecedential opinion issued the same day addressed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on Matteson’s remaining claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all challenged claims. On the wage claims, the court held that neither Hickman nor Bloomstrom qualified as Matteson’s “employer” under ORS chapter 652 because neither individual personally paid or agreed to pay him at a fixed rate — a statutory prerequisite for liability. Matteson himself confirmed at the hearing that neither defendant individually paid him for his services. Because the individual defendants were not his employers within the meaning of the statute, Matteson correspondingly had no viable wage claim against them in their individual capacities.
On the licensing claims under ORS chapter 658, the court held that the complaint’s factual allegations — that Hickman communicated work orders, coordinated job assignments, and processed paperwork — did not support an inference that Hickman recruited, solicited, supplied, or employed construction workers for remuneration, as required to qualify as a “construction labor contractor” under ORS 658.405(2). Because Hickman’s role was purely managerial within LeafFilter’s existing workforce, dismissal with prejudice was appropriate; no amendment could transform those facts into individual labor-contractor status. The court also rejected Matteson’s argument that Hickman was liable under ORS 658.465(1) for using the services of unlicensed labor contractors, finding no allegation that Hickman used any such party to procure workers for his own construction projects.
Key Takeaways
- Under ORS chapter 652, individual liability for wage claims requires that the defendant personally pay or agree to pay the worker at a fixed rate — supervisory or managerial roles within the employing entity are insufficient to create individual employer liability.
- An individual is not a “construction labor contractor” under ORS 658.405(2) merely by managing or directing workers on behalf of a licensed employer; the statute requires recruiting, soliciting, supplying, or employing workers for remuneration in one’s own right.
- Dismissal with prejudice is warranted where the underlying facts, taken as true, cannot as a matter of law be amended to satisfy the statutory definition at issue.
- Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief — such as Matteson’s ORS 658.465(1) theory of liability — will be evaluated on the pleadings as they stand, and the court will not reverse where the complaint itself lacks the necessary supporting allegations.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Oregon’s wage and labor-contractor licensing statutes attach individual liability only to those who personally stand in the role of employer or labor contractor — not to every supervisor or manager who touches the work. Employees and workers asserting statutory claims must carefully plead facts establishing that each named individual defendant independently satisfied the statutory definitions, rather than relying on their connection to a corporate employer.
Although the opinion is nonprecedential under ORAP 10.30, it illustrates how Oregon courts analyze the employer-employee relationship and labor-contractor status at the pleadings stage, and it underscores the importance of fact-specific allegations when attempting to pierce through corporate structure to hold individuals personally liable under ORS chapters 652 and 658.