Services & Industries
J.D., University of Illinois College of Law, 1981, Order of the Coif
M.A., University of Illinois, 1978
B.A., magna cum laude, University of Illinois, 1975
Bar & Court Admissions
Oregon State Bar (Inactive)
State Bar of California (Inactive)
U. S. Supreme Court
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the 7th Circuit, the 2nd Circuit and the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Courts for the District of Oregon, the Western District of Washington, and the Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California
Scott handled business disputes for clients at trial and on appeal for over three decades. His areas of expertise included antitrust, labor and employment, energy, and tax law disputes.
Helicopter Transport Services, Inc.
Won partial summary judgment for Helicopter Transport Services, Inc. in a dispute with competitor Erickson Air-Crane Inc., alleging Sherman Act § 2 monopoly leveraging and refusal to deal claims, as well as breach of contract claims.
Guydish v. U.S. Bakery
(King County, WA Superior Court/Washington Court of Appeals) – Defended successfully, in trial court and on appeal, a class action seeking unpaid overtime on behalf of route sales persons for a regional company.
Sale of Form Factory, Inc.
Tonkon Torp represented its client, Form Factory, Inc., a retail cannabis processor, in all aspects of its sale to Acreage Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded company in Canada, in an all-stock merger transaction valued at $160 million. The transaction was extremely complicated and included Oregon Liquor Control Commission licensing and other regulatory issues, complicated Delaware statutory structures, Canadian securities law considerations, complex subsidiary ownership and joint ventures, and numerous third parties.
Evergreen Helicopters v. Erickson Air-Crane, Inc.
In a precedent-setting refusal-to-deal case, Tonkon Torp obtained a summary judgment in federal court for client Evergreen Helicopters after alleging competitor Erickson Air-Crane was exerting monopoly control over spare helicopter parts.
Shareholder Oppression Claims
Brought claims for minority shareholder oppression and employment discrimination. After obtaining partial summary judgment, we obtained a favorable settlement for our client.
Frances Du Ju v. Employer
Won summary judgment in federal lawsuit for race discrimination and retaliation filed by former employee of international staffing agency.
Columbia Helicopters v. Boeing
Represented Columbia Helicopters in a dispute over Boeing’s refusal to sell Boeing helicopter parts to Oregon-based Columbia Helicopters, to allow Columbia to fulfill its contracts to repair Boeing-manufactured military CH-47 Chinook helicopters. To resolve threatened antitrust litigation, Boeing ultimately agreed to recognize Columbia Helicopters as an independent service organization provide Columbia with Boeing parts to perform CH-47 repair services.
DirectTV, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
Obtained summary judgment from tax court holding that DirectTV's Oregon-based property is subject to local assessment, which does not include intangibles, and not central assessment, which does include intangibles.
Dish Network L.L.C. v. Department of Revenue
Represented a satellite television provider challenging whether it provides "data transmission services" which could subject it to central assessment.
Powerex Corporation v. Department of Revenue
Filed amicus brief on behalf of a regulated utility before the Oregon Supreme Court to determine the nature of electricity as "tangible personal property" for purposes of Oregon corporate excise tax.
Defended attacks by the American Trucking Associations against Oregon's heavy truck tax system. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the tax did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Oregon Court of Appeals, Oregon Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court)
Represented an employer in a disability discrimination case in which the plaintiff asserted that Oregon employers must accommodate medical marijuana use. As a matter of first impression, the Oregon Supreme Court held that Oregon law takes into account mitigating measures to decide whether an employee is disabled and entitled to disability protection. (Oregon Supreme Court)
Represented NIKE in a discrimination case, in which the jury returned a verdict in NIKE's favor and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Represent Crystal Communications, Inc. in a dispute with the Oregon Department of Revenue. At issue is whether a Florida-domiciled S corporation's $48 million gain on the sale of an FCC license in Oregon is subject to apportioned taxation as business income in Oregon. (Oregon Supreme Court)
Association of Public Agency Customers v. Bonneville Power Administration
Represented PGE in this dispute concerning BPA's 2012 Residential Exchange Program settlement. The program allows investor-owned utilities to obtain the benefit of low-cost BPA generated power for residential and small farm customer load. We intervened on the side of BPA to defend the settlement. It upheld on appeal, the settlement fixes exchange benefits for the next 18 years.
Americans With Disabilities Act
Represented Georgia-Pacific in an appeal establishing standards for when a return to work performance test constitutes a medical examination subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Medical Use of Marijuana Reasonable Accommodation
Successfully obtained summary judgment on employer's obligation to reasonably accommodate medical use of marijuana which was upheld on by State Supreme Court.
Represented a doctor in a case in which the jury found that our client's hospital privileges were revoked as a result of an unlawful conspiracy and monopolization. The U.S. Supreme Court held that defendants' actions were not immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. Supreme Court)
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Oregon Dept. of Transport
339 Or 554 (2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 2960 (2006) We represented the AAA Oregon/Idaho defending attacks by the American Trucking Associations against Oregon's heavy truck tax system. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the tax did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Blackthorne v. Vanstar Corporation
USDC for the District of Oregon — Obtained summary judgment dismissing various claims with punitive damage potential, remaining claims settled favorably to our client.
Chilton Air Cooled Engines, Inc. v. Omark Industries, Inc.
USDC for the Middle District of Tennessee — Won dismissal of all but one claim alleging various conspiracy and other trade regulation claims, remaining claim settled favorably to our client.
Continental Maritime, Inc. v. Northwest Marine Iron Works et al.
USDC for the Northern District of California — Won summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, against shipyard/union conspiracy claims regarding diversion of ship repair business.
Estey & Associates, Inc. v. McCulloch Corporation et al.
USDC for the District of Oregon — Won defense judgment against claims for conspiracy, monopolization, and price discrimination.
Evergreen Helicopters, Inc. v. Erickson Air-Crane Inc
USDC for the District of Oregon — Won partial summary judgment in case alleging Sherman Act § 2 monopoly leveraging and refusal to deal claims, as well as breach of contract claims, remaining claims settled to the parties' satisfaction.
Georgia-Pacific Gypsum LLC v. Teamsters Local 117 et al
USDC for the Western District of Washington — Won summary judgment vacating a labor arbitration award that had reinstated an employee terminated for failing a random drug test, under a collective bargaining agreement providing for termination for all failed drug tests.
Indergard v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation
582 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) Establishing standards for when a return to work performance test constitutes a medical examination subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
McCall v. Dynic USA Corporation
138 Or. App. 1 (1995) Affirming summary judgment in a worker's compensation discrimination case on the ground that issue preclusion applied to a determination in a worker's compensation proceeding that plaintiff had been fired for refusing to perform work within her restrictions, rather than for discriminatory reasons.
Nike, Inc. v. McCarthy
379 F. 3d 576 (9th Cir. 2004) The Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction entered in favor of our client, Nike, against an employee who tried to move to Nike competitor, Reebok. The court decided when a bona fide advancement occurs, an issue of first impression under Oregon law. The decision established a "totality of the circumstances" test favorable to employers who wish to bind employees to non-compete agreements upon promotion.
Public Power Council, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration
443 F. 3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2006) In an appeal by public utilities challenging a uniform rate adjustment implemented across all customer classes, the Ninth Circuit upheld the BPA action. It rejected arguments that the rate increases should have been imposed only on non-public, investor-owned utilities, including our client, Portland General Electric Company.
Townsend v. Nike, Inc.
2007 WL 1493139 (9th Cir. 2007) Jury verdict in favor of our employer-client was affirmed in case alleging that Nike had failed to promote plaintiff because of his race.
Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc.
340 Or 469 (2006) Judgment for our employer-client was affirmed in a disability discrimination case asserting that Oregon employers have an obligation to accommodate medical marijuana use. The Oregon Supreme Court established for the first time that Oregon disability law takes mitigating measures into account to decide whether an employee is disabled and entitled to disability protection.
Columbia Helicopters v. Honeywell
Successfully negotiated agreement on behalf of Columbia Helicopters in a dispute with Honeywell, a leading manufacturer of engines for military helicopters, after alleging an unlawful refusal to deal under the Sherman Act on the part of Honeywell.
Represent Apeldyn Corporation in patent infringement litigation against Sony, Samsung, AU Optronics, and Chi Mei Optoelectronics. The lawsuits are for infringement of Apeldyn’s patents related to the fast response liquid crystal systems used in flat panel screens. (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals)
Horizon Radiology filed a complaint against VDIC in February of 2009 alleging antitrust violations under California law along with other California statutory and common law claims. The matter was resolved by settlement on in May of 2009.
Obtained affirmance of a summary judgment decision holding that a bakery's compensation system for a class of route sales drivers provided the reasonable equivalent of overtime and was therefore exempt from Washington's overtime laws. (Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court)
The popular Netflix series, Wild Wild Country, has placed the compelling story of the Rajneeshee cult community back in the spotlight. Led by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and Ma Anand Sheela, the commune was active in Wasco County, Oregon during the early 1980s. Tonkon Torp attorneys were involved in three well-documented lawsuits that helped to halt the fraudulent actions of the Rajneeshees and restore assets to former members of the cult.
Tonkon Torp led Oregon’s largest M&A transaction in 2017, the $700 million acquisition of Tualatin-based Pacific Foods of Oregon LLC by Campbell Investment Company. Pacific Foods is an iconic, nationally distributed organic food brand founded in 1987.
Tonkon Torp’s trial attorneys were victorious in defending Dooney & Bourke, Inc., in a wage claims trial in the U. S. District Court in Portland. Their litigation team defended the high-end, Connecticut-based handbag manufacturer against wage claims made by a former independent sales representative.
Tonkon Torp acted as Oregon corporate counsel for its long-term client The Greenbrier Companies, Inc. in finalizing a 50/50 joint venture with Watco Companies, L.L.C. The venture combines the two companies’ railcar repair, refurbishment and maintenance businesses into a new organization, GBW Railcar Services, LLC.
Representing Portland General Electric (PGE), Tonkon Torp appellate lawyers successfully argued for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to uphold a settlement by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Find details and more featured cases here.
Community Involvement & Activities
Oregon State Bar
Antitrust Section Executive Committee – Past Member, Past Chair
Legal Services Program Committee – Past Member, Past Chair
Oregon State Bar Litigation Journal
Editorial Board, Past Member
American Bar Association
Antitrust Section – Past Internet Committee Member
YMCA of the Columbia-Willamette
Past Board of Management
Multnomah Bar Association
Oregon Association of Defense Counsel
American Bar Association, Antitrust, Labor & Employment, Litigation Sections
Forty-nine Tonkon Torp lawyers representing 36 practice areas have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2021. A majority of attorneys have been named to the peer-review list in past years, and most have been recognized for more than five years.
Forty-eight Tonkon Torp lawyers representing 39 practice areas have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2020. A majority of attorneys have been named to the list in past years, and most have been recognized for more than five years.
Attorneys from the Tonkon Torp Labor & Employment and Business Immigration practice groups hosted their annual Employment Law Update at the Oregon Zoo for 200 human resource professionals and other business leaders.
Fifty-one Tonkon Torp lawyers representing 41 practice areas have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2019. Nearly all attorneys have been named to the list in past years, and have been recognized for more than five years
On May 10, attorneys from the Tonkon Torp Labor & Employment and Business Immigration practice groups hosted their annual Employment Law Seminar at the Oregon Zoo for nearly 200 human resource professionals and other business leaders. The 2018 seminar, Superhuman Resources, featured presentations incorporating the many special powers employers need to navigate today’s workplace.
The ruling in the case required the Office of Management and Budget to grant a three-year approval of a revised EEO-1 form that would add new equal employment opportunity information to what the EEOC already collected from employers.
A new decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has reinstated a requirement instituted by the EEOC in the last year of the Obama Administration for employers to report pay data. On July 14, 2016, the EEOC asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a three-year approval of a revised EEO-1 form that would add new equal employment opportunity information to what the EEOC already collected from employers.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects employees who engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for mutual aid and protection. How far that protection extends was tested in NLRB v. Pier Sixty, LLC, a decision issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which sits in New York) in an enforcement action by the Board. And the result of that case is chilling for employers.
For more than 30 years, the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have uniformly ruled that Title VII’s prohibitions against discrimination based on “sex” do not cover claims for discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” That has now changed. Last week, the Seventh Circuit (which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) became the first circuit court of appeals to recognize that discrimination based on sexual orientation is indistinguishable from discrimination based on sex, in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.
On March 9, 2017, a Multnomah County judge dismissed the claims asserted by a putative class of workers in the closely-watched case Mazahua Reyes, et al. v. Portland Specialty Baking, LLC. All Oregon non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime for hours worked over 40 in any workweek. Unlike employees in other industries, however, those working in a “manufacturing establishment” are also entitled to daily overtime when they work more than 10 hours in any work day.
Publications & Presentations
Scott has authored numerous articles on antitrust, litigation, and labor and employment issues and has spoken frequently at antitrust and labor and employment continuing legal education programs.