wrongful discharge claim for his reports and opposition to unlawful conduct. CPUD asks the Court to decide the oft-raised issue of whether a plaintiff who alleges the interstitial tort of common law wrongful discharge is precluded from bringing that claim because there is an adequate statutory remedy. Under Oregon law, a claim for common law wrongful discharge is not available if “(1) an existing remedy adequately protects the public interest in question, or (2) the legislature has intentionally abrogated the common law remedies by establishing an exclusive remedy (regardless of whether the courts perceive that remedy to be adequate).” Arnold v. Pfizer, Inc., 970 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1145-46 (D.Or.2013) (citation omitted); see Wall v. Sentry Ins., 2015 WL 350683, at *3 (D.Or. Jan. 26, 2015) (<HOLDING>). When a court decides whether an adequate
holding that an employees claim for relief for wrongful discharge based on state common law was preempted by  1132a recognizing common law tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of ohio public policy based upon statutory and judicial sources holding that the test for preclusion of a common law wrongful discharge claim is disjunctive recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge recognizing tort of wrongful discharge