ORS 659A.199¹
Prohibited conduct by employer

(1) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.

(2) The remedies provided by this chapter are in addition to any common law remedy or other remedy that may be available to an employee for the conduct constituting a violation of this section. [2009 c.524 §2]

(formerly 659.280 to 659.290)

Law Review Cita­tions

26 WLR 394-395 (1990)

Notes of Decisions

To es­tab­lish prima facie case of retalia­tion, plaintiff must es­tab­lish that (1) plaintiff engaged in protected ac­tivity; (2) plaintiff suffered adverse employ­ment decision; and (3) there is a causal link between protected ac­tivity and adverse employ­ment decision. Neighorn v. Quest Health Care, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Or. 2012)

To es­tab­lish causa­tion between protected ac­tivity and adverse employ­ment decision, plaintiff must es­tab­lish that protected ac­tivity was substantial factor in motivating employer’s decision. Larmanger v. Kaiser Founda­tion Health Plan of the Northwest, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Or. 2012)

This sec­tion extends whistleblowing protec­tions to private sector employees; this sec­tion does not apply to public employers. Lindsey v. Clatskanie People’s Utility District, 140 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (D. Or. 2015)

As used in this sec­tion, “reported” means report of in­for­ma­­tion to either external or internal authority. Brunozzi v. Cable Communica­tions Inc., 851 F3d 990 (9th Cir. 2017)

Where plaintiff shows plaintiff’s protected characteristic caused discrimina­tion, wrongful motives of subordinate may be imputed to independent decision maker; plaintiff need not prove decision maker had protected characteristic in mind when making adverse employ­ment decision. Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 290 Or App 16, 415 P3d 55 (2018)

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

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