Notice of violation to employer by worker
- complaint by worker to director
- inspection
- employee protections
- rebuttable presumption
- rules
Mentioned in
Discrimination at Work
"Oregon laws protect you from being discriminated against at work. That means you can’t be fired or demoted, paid less, or otherwise treated differently because of certain characteristics about you."
Bibliographic info
Source:
Section 654.062 — Notice of violation to employer by worker; complaint by worker to director; inspection; employee protections; rebuttable presumption; rules, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors654.html (accessed May 26, 2025).
Notes of Decisions
Welder who refused to work on particular machine alleging inadequate ventilation and need for respirators was not within protection of this section, where referee found that claimant had refused to work without justification. Pintok v. Employment Division, 32 Or App 273, 573 P2d 773 (1978)
Filing of administrative complaint does not bar bringing of civil action unless administrative complaint has been dismissed following hearing on merits. Carsner v. Freightliner Corp., 69 Or App 666, 688 P2d 398 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Where plaintiff was discharged by defendant employer after allegedly suffering handicap and complaining about causative unsafe working conditions, plaintiff’s action for wrongful discharge, unlawful employment practices and breach of discharge provisions of personnel manual not barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata on basis of earlier denial of his claims for workers’ compensation and unemployment compensation. Griffith v. Hodes, 96 Or App 387, 772 P2d 1370 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Where terminated employee sued former employer for wrongful discharge and employer moved to dismiss, this section provides state law remedy for employees discharged for complaining about health and safety problems. Messer v. Portland Adventist Medical Center, 707 F Supp 449 (D. Or. 1989)
Applicable statute of limitations for actions under this section is one-year period for filing unlawful employment practice claim. Raptopolous v. WS, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 394 (D. Or. 1990)
Where employer discharged employee in violation of this section, Bureau of Labor and Industries did not err in refusing to offset unemployment compensation benefits received by employee from back pay award authorized by this section. German Auto Parts v. Bureau of Labor and Ind., 111 Or App 522, 826 P2d 1026 (1992)
Employees working outside state are not within scope of statute and therefore are not barred from common law tort claim for wrongful discharge. Anderson v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc., 131 Or App 726, 886 P2d 1068 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
If complaint by employee “related to” Oregon Safe Employment Act, employee need not establish that violation of law, regulation or standard was alleged or actually existed in order to prove retaliatory action. Butler v. Dept. of Corrections, 138 Or App 190, 909 P2d 163 (1995)
Successful defendant in suit by employee or prospective employee is not entitled to prevailing party attorney fees. Mantia v. Hanson, 190 Or App 36, 77 P3d 1143 (2003), Sup Ct review denied
Because “all appropriate relief” does not include compensatory or punitive damages, availability of relief under this section does not preclude common law suit for wrongful discharge. Cantley v. DSMF, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Or. 2006)
Where plaintiff shows plaintiff’s protected characteristic caused discrimination, wrongful motives of subordinate may be imputed to independent decision maker; plaintiff need not prove decision maker had protected characteristic in mind when making adverse employment decision. Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 290 Or App 16, 415 P3d 55 (2018), aff’d 365 Or 196, 445 P3d 281 (2019)