2017 ORS 659A.425¹
Violation based on facially neutral housing policy

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Facially neutral housing policy” means a guideline, practice, rule or screening or admission criterion, regarding a real property transaction, that applies equally to all persons.

(b) “Protected class” means a group of persons distinguished by race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, familial status, source of income or disability.

(c) “Real property transaction” means an act described in ORS 659A.145 (Discrimination against individual with disability in real property transactions prohibited) or 659A.421 (Discrimination in selling, renting or leasing real property prohibited) involving the renting or leasing of residential real property subject to ORS chapter 90.

(2) A court or the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries may find a person to have violated ORS 659A.145 (Discrimination against individual with disability in real property transactions prohibited) or 659A.421 (Discrimination in selling, renting or leasing real property prohibited) if:

(a) The person applies a facially neutral housing policy to a member of a protected class in a real property transaction involving a residential tenancy subject to ORS chapter 90; and

(b) Application of the policy adversely impacts members of the protected class to a greater extent than the policy impacts persons generally.

(3) In determining under subsection (2) of this section whether a violation has occurred and, if a violation has occurred, what relief should be granted, a court or the commissioner shall consider:

(a) The significance of the adverse impact on the protected class;

(b) The importance and necessity of any business purpose for the facially neutral housing policy; and

(c) The availability of less discriminatory alternatives for achieving the business purpose for the facially neutral housing policy. [2008 c.36 §2]

(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.