2017 ORS 659A.309¹
Discrimination solely because of employment of another family member prohibited
  • exceptions

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer solely because another member of an individual’s family works or has worked for that employer to:

(a) Refuse to hire or employ an individual;

(b) Bar or discharge from employment an individual; or

(c) Discriminate against an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

(2) An employer is not required to hire or employ and is not prohibited from barring or discharging an individual if such action:

(a) Would constitute a violation of any law of this state or of the United States, or any rule promulgated pursuant thereto, with which the employer is required to comply;

(b) Would constitute a violation of the conditions of eligibility for receipt by the employer of financial assistance from the government of this state or the United States;

(c) Would place the individual in a position of exercising supervisory, appointment or grievance adjustment authority over a member of the individual’s family or in a position of being subject to such authority which a member of the individual’s family exercises; or

(d) Would cause the employer to disregard a bona fide occupational requirement reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the employer’s business.

(3) As used in this section, “member of an individual’s family” means the spouse in a marriage, son, daughter, parent, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, stepparent or stepchild of the individual. [Formerly 659.340; 2015 c.629 §56]

(formerly 659.131, then 659.340)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Refusal to employ individual in particular depart­ment of employer solely because individual’s spouse already employed in depart­ment, (1980) Vol 40, p 259

(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

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.