2017 ORS 659A.230¹
Discrimination for initiating or aiding in criminal or civil proceedings prohibited
  • remedies not exclusive

(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 criminal activity by any person, has in good faith caused a complainant’s information or complaint to be filed against any person, has in good faith cooperated with any law enforcement agency conducting a criminal investigation, has in good faith brought a civil proceeding against an employer or has testified in good faith at a civil proceeding or criminal trial.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “complainant’s information” and “complaint” have the meanings given those terms in ORS 131.005 (General definitions).

(3) 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. [Formerly 659.550]

(formerly 659.280 to 659.290)

Law Review Cita­tions

26 WLR 394-395 (1990)

Notes of Decisions

To be protected for reporting crim­i­nal ac­tivity, employee must believe that subject matter of report involves crim­i­nal con­duct at time that report is made. Roberts v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co., 242 Or App 474, 255 P3d 628 (2011), Sup Ct review denied

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)

Where plaintiff, employed by defendant as in-home per­sonal assistant who performed domestic and other tasks for defendant, reported defendant’s pos­ses­sion and display of child por­nog­ra­phy to law en­force­­ment and assisted in investiga­tion resulting in defendant’s con­vic­­tion, was fired from employ­ment, plaintiff was not re­quired to show plaintiff met defini­tion of employee in ORS 659A.001 to prevail on claim for wrongful discharge for plaintiff’s fulfill­ment of important public duty. McManus v. Auchincloss, 271 Or App 765, 353 P3d 17 (2015), Sup Ct review denied

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 (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 659A, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano659A.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.