Hours

ORS 652.355
Prohibition of discrimination because of wage claim or refusal to work additional hours

  • remedy


(1)

An employer may not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because:

(a)

The employee has made a wage claim or discussed, inquired about or consulted an attorney or agency about a wage claim;

(b)

The employee has caused to be instituted any proceedings under or related to ORS 652.310 (Definitions of employer and employee) to 652.414 (Procedure for payment from fund);

(c)

The employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceedings;

(d)

The employee has inquired about the provisions of ORS 652.020 (Maximum working hours in certain industries) or has reported a violation of or filed a complaint related to ORS 652.020 (Maximum working hours in certain industries);

(e)

The employee has declined to consent to work more than 55 hours in any given workweek under ORS 652.020 (Maximum working hours in certain industries) or 653.265 (Overtime for persons employed in canneries, driers and packing plants); or

(f)

The employee has declined to consent to work more than 55 hours per workweek in any given workweek during an undue hardship period under ORS 652.020 (Maximum working hours in certain industries) or 653.265 (Overtime for persons employed in canneries, driers and packing plants).

(2)

A violation of this section is an unlawful employment practice under ORS chapter 659A. A person unlawfully discriminated against under this section may file a complaint under ORS 659A.820 (Complaints) with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries. [1975 c.397 §2; 1980 c.1 §1; 2007 c.278 §1; 2017 c.685 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Action on behalf of alleged class of employes of defendant telephone company alleging sex discrimination in wage rates and retaliatory acts after administrative discrimination complaints were filed raised issues of statutory construction more appropriately resolved by state courts. Forsberg v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co., 623 F Supp 117 (1985)

Discharge or discrimination because claimant files wage claim does not require employer intent to retaliate against claimant. Brown v. American Property Management Corp., 167 Or App 53, 1 P3d 1051 (2000)

"Actual damages" resulting from discrimination or discharge includes noneconomic damages. Brown v. American Property Management Corp., 167 Or App 53, 1 P3d 1051 (2000)

Request for wage increase for future work is not "wage claim." Perri v. Certified Languages International, LLC, 187 Or App 76, 66 P3d 531 (2003)

Where plaintiff remained on state payroll while on leave from state after assuming full-time duties as president of union and union reimbursed state for state's payments to plaintiff, state was paying plaintiff for rendering personal services to union and state was not plaintiff's employer under ORS 652.310; therefore, plaintiff did not make wage claim, as defined by ORS 652.320, against plaintiff's employer for personal services rendered to plaintiff's employer when plaintiff initiated wage-claim action against state for unpaid overtime wages plaintiff accrued while rendering personal services to union and, accordingly, plaintiff did not allege facts indicating state discriminated against plaintiff for filing wage claim for purposes of this section. Dinicola v. State of Oregon, 280 Or App 488, 382 P3d 547 (2016), Sup Ct review denied

As used in this section, "wage claim" means demand or request that employee has against employer for compensation due and owing for employee's personal services; thus, where employee complained to supervisors about inadequate wages, employee's complaints qualified for protection under this section. Brunozzi v. Cable Communications Inc., 851 F3d 990 (9th Cir. 2017)

§§ 652.310 to 652.410

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Validity of 10-hour day, 40-hour week without overtime in public employment, (1972) Vol 35, p 1083

§§ 652.110 to 652.405

Notes of Decisions

Where employer was charged with criminal violation of Massachusetts payment of wages statute for failing to pay discharged employees for their unused vacation time, employer's policy of paying discharged employees for unused vacation time was not "employee welfare benefits plan" under section 3 (1) of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and criminal action to enforce that policy is therefore not foreclosed by section 514 (a) of ERISA. Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107, 109 S. Ct. 1668, 104 L.Ed 98 (1989)

It is unnecessary to imply private right of action for employee against secured creditor in possession under ORS 652.310 to 652.405 when to do so would render provisions of ORS 652.110 to 652.250 superfluous. Stout v. Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc., 102 Or App 637, 796 P2d 373 (1990), Sup Ct review denied


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021