A longtime Oregon fire marshal has filed a wide-ranging employment lawsuit against the Tillamook Fire District, alleging age discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, retaliation for protected medical leave, unpaid wages, destruction of personnel records, and related statutory violations.
The case, Descloux v. Tillamook Fire District, was filed on December 16, 2025, in Tillamook County Circuit Court. The plaintiff, Rueben Descloux, is seeking damages totaling approximately $339,030, along with statutory penalties, equitable relief, and attorney fees.
According to the complaint, Descloux began working for the Tillamook Fire District around July 1, 2004. He served as the district’s Fire Marshal, performing fire inspections, emergency response, code enforcement, and public safety inspections. The complaint states that Descloux had firefighting and fire inspection experience dating back to approximately 1990 and was over the age of 40 at all relevant times.
The fire district is alleged to have employed fewer than ten paid employees but, as a public employer, remained subject to Oregon employment statutes governing discrimination, retaliation, and wages.
The complaint alleges that Descloux was placed on paid administrative leave on June 12, 2023—the same day he returned from approved family medical leave taken to care for his father. An investigation was initiated into alleged policy violations, including accusations related to phone data deletion and associations with former employees.
Descloux alleges that he was later cleared of all allegations around November 2023, but despite being exonerated, he was not returned to active duty. He claims he was forced to resign from his position on November 30, 2023.
The suit includes nine counts
- Age Discrimination – (ORS 659A.030(1)(a))
- Whistleblower Retaliation – (ORS 659A.199; ORS 659A.203)
- Retaliation for Protected Medical Leave (OFLA) – (ORS 659A.183; ORS 659A.186)
- Unlawful Withholding of Wages – (ORS 652.140; ORS 652.150)
- Failure to Provide Itemized Wage Statements – (ORS 652.610; ORS 652.615)
- Failure to Provide Personnel Records – (ORS 652.750)
- Promissory Estoppel / Implied-in-Fact Contract
- Declaratory Relief – (ORS 28.010 et seq.)
- Reasonable Attorney Fees and Costs – (ORS 659A.885; ORS 652.200; ORS 20.107)
As for age discrimination, Descloux claims his age was a substantial factor in the decision to place him on administrative leave and in the district’s refusal to reinstate him. The complaint asserts that he was one of the remaining employees over the age of 40 at the district during the relevant period and that other older employees were terminated, forced to resign, or otherwise disciplined, while younger employees were allegedly treated more favorably.
The lawsuit also alleges multiple instances of whistleblowing activity over several years. According to the complaint:
- In 2018, Descloux reported that the fire chief at the time altered timecards and payroll records.
- In January 2020, he reported sick leave violations by the next fire chief to the fire board.
- In 2022, he reported alleged governance violations by the fire district board chair to the Special Districts Association of Oregon.
The complaint alleges that these reports were known to district management and discussed at board meetings, and that the subsequent administrative leave and investigation were causally connected to these whistleblower activities.
Descloux further alleges retaliation for taking protected family medical leave, under Oregon state law. The complaint states that before his leave, he was required to surrender a service-issued cell phone that also functioned as his personal phone, and that the district refused to allow him to retain it during his leave. He alleges that he was placed on administrative leave immediately upon returning from protected leave, and that his use of medical leave was a substantial factor in that decision. While not explicitly mentioned in the complaint – the FMLA requires the employer to have at least 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite. The complaint says the district had fewer than ten employees, hence why a state law remedy was chosen.
The complaint alleges that at the time of his resignation, Descloux had accrued wages, paid time off, compensatory time, and overtime that were not paid. He claims the district failed to timely pay approximately 300 hours of accrued PTO and overtime and failed to provide required wage statements from June through November 2023, including a final itemized wage statement.
He seeks unpaid wages, penalty wages, interest, and mandatory attorney fees under Oregon wage statutes.
One of the more unusual allegations in the case involves access to personnel records. The complaint alleges that Descloux requested access to his personnel and training records in September 2024 and that the district denied access due to pending litigation. That failure is alleged to violate ORS 652.750.
The complaint further alleges that Descloux was later informed that extensive training and personnel records—some dating back decades—had been destroyed. These allegedly included fire academy records, certification documents, military commendations, FEMA training records, and other paper-only records that the complaint describes as “irreplaceable”.
Finally, the complaint alleges that the district, through counsel, proposed a settlement under which Descloux would resign in exchange for payment of accrued wages and benefits. Descloux claims he relied on those promises in resigning, but that the promised payments were not made.
He seeks declaratory relief regarding the enforceability or rescission of the alleged settlement agreement, along with statutory and equitable remedies.
*This article was published 12/17/25 on Fire Law Blog – https://firelawblog.com/2025/12/17/oregon-fire-marshal-sues-tillamook-fire-district-alleging-age-discrimination-retaliation-and-wage-violations/