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)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

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

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