a protected activity, (2) suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision.” Neighorn v. Quest Health Care, 870 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1102 (D.Or.2012); Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F.Supp.2d 940, 965 (D.Or.2011). 1. “Disclosures” under ORS § 659Á.203, As a threshold matter, the Court must decide whether Lindsey’s reports to Booth regarding the computer search and scrub constitute “disclosures” and thus could potentially qualify as pro-teeted activity under ORS § 659A.203. In Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that “disclosure” under the whistleblower protection statute includes a report made within an agency or a department. 202 Or.App. 162, 169-70, 120 P.3d 1235 (2005) (<HOLDING>). The court in Bjwrstrom did conclude, however,
holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute holding that the actions were not actions of public and general applicability but were actions directed principally and primarily at plaintiffs holding that ors  659a030 does not limit the protected actions to extraagency disclosures of wrongdoing holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that adea class actions are optin actions under  216b not optout actions subject to rule 23