Mitchell v. BOLI

── Mitchell v. BOLI ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Kamins Category: General 520 May 13, 2026 No. 405 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Todd MITCHELL, individually, under ORS 659A.030(1)(g), Petitioner, and FREHOO, INC., dba Stars Cabaret & Steak House, et. al., Respondents Below. v. BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF THE STATE OF OREGON Respondent. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries 3716; A183925 Argued and submitted September 22, 2025. Angela Ferrer argued the cause for petitioner. Also on the briefs were Andrew Altschul, Courtney Angeli, and Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan, LLP. Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. KAMINS, J. Reversed and remanded. Cite as 349 Or App 520 (2026) 521 522 Mitchell v. BOLI KAMINS, J. Petitioner appeals from a Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) final order determining that petitioner, owner of Frehoo, Inc. (Frehoo), aided and abetted sex- ual harassment under former ORS 659A.030(1)(g) (2021), renumbered as ORS 659A.030(1)(h) (2025). Petitioner raises two assignments of error. First, he argues that the board erred by determining that he aided and abetted a statutory violation without requiring that he had actual knowledge of the underlying violation. Second, he contends that the board exceeded its authority in holding petitioner jointly and sev- erally liable for the full damage award. We reverse on the first assignment of error, which obviates the need to address the second. I. BACKGROUND This case concerns an adult entertainment estab- lishment operated by Frehoo, with shares owned by three primary individual owners, including petitioner. Frehoo hired AP21—a 15-year-old victim of child sex trafficking— as a dancer. During her time working for Frehoo, customers touched her sexually. A bartender working at the club recog- nized AP2 from a missing persons photo and reported that to a Frehoo manager and petitioner. Petitioner directed the club’s general manager to contact law enforcement immedi- ately. Following an investigation and a proposed order issued by an administrative law judge, BOLI issued a final order determining Frehoo was liable for subjecting AP2 to sex dis- crimination via the creation of a hostile working environ- ment in violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(b) and that three own- ers, including petitioner, were liable for aiding and abetting in violation of former ORS 659A.030(g) (2021). Frehoo, Inc. v. BOLI, 319 Or App 548, 550, 510 P3d 888 (2022), rev den, 370 Or 789 (2023). Respondents appealed, and we reversed after determining that BOLI applied a legal standard to impose aider-and-abettor liability that was not found in the statute. Id. at 564-66. On remand, BOLI issued an amended final 1 Consistent with past cases, we refer to complainant as “AP,” which stands for “aggrieved person.” Frehoo, Inc. v. BOLI, 319 Or App 548, 550 n 1, 510 P3d 888 (2022), rev den, 370 Or 789 (2023). The original complaint referred to two aggrieved persons—AP1 and AP2, but only conduct related to AP2 remains at issue. Id. Cite as 349 Or App 520 (2026) 523 order, again determining that Frehoo was liable for subjecting AP2 to sex discrimination in violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(b). BOLI also determined that, applying the correct statutory language, petitioner, but not the other two owners, was lia- ble for aiding and abetting sexual harassment in vio