ORS 659A.109¹
Discrimination against individual for using procedures in ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 prohibited

It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an individual with respect to hire or tenure or any term or condition of employment because the individual has applied for benefits or invoked or used the procedures provided for in ORS 659A.103 (Policy) to 659A.145 (Discrimination against individual with disability in real property transactions prohibited) or has given testimony under the provisions of ORS 659A.103 (Policy) to 659A.145 (Discrimination against individual with disability in real property transactions prohibited). [Formerly 659.410; 2009 c.508 §5]

(formerly 659.280 to 659.290)

Law Review Cita­tions

26 WLR 394-395 (1990)

Notes of Decisions

Termina­tion of employ­ment in retalia­tion for invoking Oregon Family Leave Act rights constitutes wrongful discharge in viola­tion of public policy. Yeager v. Providence Health System Oregon, 195 Or App 134, 96 P3d 862 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

(formerly 659.410)

Notes of Decisions

Factfinder could believe evidence showing that plaintiff was fired by defendant because he had lied about his disability status and extent of his ability to work and not because plaintiff filed workers’ compensa­tion claim. Ledesma v. Freight­liner Corp., 97 Or App 379, 776 P2d 43 (1989)

Where terminated employee sued former employer for wrongful discharge alleging employer violated covenants of good faith and fair dealing in express and implied employ­ment contract, termina­tion of employee in order to deprive employee of benefits to which employee would otherwise have become entitled if employ­ment continued is breach of obliga­tion to perform in good faith. Messer v. Portland Adventist Medical Center, 707 F Supp 449 (D. Or. 1989)

Prima Facie Case of Retaliatory Discharge Is Established By Proving

1) plaintiff invoked workers’ compensa­tion system; 2) plaintiff was discriminated against in tenure, terms or condi­tions of employ­ment; and 3) that discrimina­tion was result of plaintiff invoking system. Stanich v. Precision Body and Paint, Inc., 151 Or App 446, 950 P2d 328 (1997)

“Invoking” of pro­ce­dures provided for in ORS chapter 656 includes worker’s reporting of on-the-job injury or percep­tion by employer that worker has been injured on job or will report injury. McPhail v. Milwaukie Lumber Company, 165 Or App 596, 999 P2d 1144 (2000)

Claimant alleging mixed motive for termina­tion is subject to same evidentiary burden that applies where plaintiff alleges motive for termina­tion is pretext. Hardie v. Legacy Health System, 167 Or App 425, 6 P3d 531 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

Statute protects from retalia­tion employee who applies for benefits or invokes or utilizes pro­ce­dures prohibiting discrimina­tion against employees even if employee is not disabled. Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 230 Or App 715, 218 P3d 542 (2009)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 659A—Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions; Administrative and Civil Enforcement, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors659A.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 659A, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano659A.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information