This is a claim for wrongful discharge. Plaintiff appeals an order dismissing her complaint for failure to allege ultimate facts sufficient to state a claim. ORCP 21A(8). We affirm.

Plaintiffs complaint alleges:

“III

“Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in December, 1974. In August, 1981, Plaintiff worked as a Loan Coordinator in Defendant’s Salem Branch under the supervision of Gene Wayne. Plaintiff was single, but was engaged to be married.

“IV

“On November 19, 1982, Plaintiff was terminated from her employment.

“V

“Defendant breached Plaintiffs right to be gainfully employed. The employment decisions regarding Plaintiffs position in the Company were discriminatory because these decisions were based on Plaintiffs sex and marital status.”

She first contends that her complaint alleges sufficient facts to put defendant on notice of her claim. She argues that the “employment decisions” alleged in paragraph V of her complaint relate to defendant’s conduct generally, including her termination alleged in paragraph IV and that she thus has met the prima facie pleading requirements. We agree that, if a cause of action exists when an employe alleges that he or she was discharged for becoming engaged to marry, plaintiffs pleadings state such a claim.

Plaintiff next contends that the cause of action does exist. In Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l., 297 Or 10, 15-17, 681 P2d 114 (1984), the Supreme Court set out three supposed categories of wrongful discharge cases. The first category includes cases in which the employe was discharged for fulfilling a societal obligation so that the termination interferes with an important public interest. 297 Or at 15-16. Taking time off to serve on a jury and refusing to give false testimony under oath are examples. See Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210, 536 P2d 512 (1975); Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 174 Cal App 2d 184, 344 P2d 25 (1959).

*134 The second category includes cases in which the employe was discharged for pursuing a right related to his or her role as an employe and the right pursued is one of important public interest protected by federal or state constitutions, statutes or case law. Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, supra, 297 Or at 16. Discharging an employe for filing a workers compensation claim is an example. See Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597, 588 P2d 1087 (1978); cf. Campbell v. Ford Industries, Inc., 274 Or 243, 546 P2d 141 (1976) (no claim stated when employe was discharged in retaliation for exercising right of a stockholder to inspect corporate records).

The third category is really a limitation on the other two, not a true category, and includes cases in which an adequate remedy exists to protect society’s interests, so that an additional remedy for wrongful discharge need not be provided. See Walsh v. Consolidated Freightways, 278 Or 347, 563 P2d 1205 (1977) (adequate remedy exists for employe discharged for complaining about unsafe working conditions).

Plaintiff contends that her claim fits within Delaney’s second category. She argues that she was pursuing her right to marry without any resulting change in her employment status and that her right is related to her role as an employe and is a right of important public interest protected by the federal Constitution and state statutes. Defendant responds that plaintiffs claim does not satisfy any of Delaney’s categories and that her claim does not involve any right related to her role as an employe. 1

Generally, in the absence of a contract or legislation to the contrary, an employer may discharge an at-will employe at any time and for any cause without incurring liability. Patton v. J.C. Penney Co, supra n 1, 75 Or App at 641. *135 However, under certain circumstances, an employer who discharges an employe for a socially undesirable motive must respond in damages for any injury done. See Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, supra. Plaintiff concedes that being discharged for becoming engaged to marry does not fall within Delaney’s first category. However, she argues that her right to marry without a resulting change in her employment status is a right related to her role as an employe. We conclude that, as in Campbell v. Ford Industries, Inc., supra, plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim based on a private right which is not related to her role as an employe. Thus, she has not stated a claim that falls within Delaney’s second category. See Kofoid v. Woodard Hotels, Inc., 78 Or App 283, 716 P2d 771 (1986).

Because plaintiff did not allege a claim within either of Delaney’s first two categories, we need not consider whether she is barred by the third category. We note that plaintiff asserts a right that is otherwise protected by ORS 659.030 and ORS 659.121. 2

Affirmed.