Miscellaneous Prohibitions Relating to Employment and Discrimination

ORS 659.850
Discrimination in education prohibited

  • rules


(1)

As used in this section, “discrimination” means any act that unreasonably differentiates treatment, intended or unintended, or any act that is fair in form but discriminatory in operation, either of which is based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, age or disability. “Discrimination” does not include enforcement of an otherwise valid dress code or policy, as long as the code or policy provides, on a case-by-case basis, for reasonable accommodation of an individual based on the health and safety needs of the individual.

(2)

A person may not be subjected to discrimination in any public elementary, secondary or community college education program or service, school or interschool activity or in any higher education program or service, school or interschool activity where the program, service, school or activity is financed in whole or in part by moneys appropriated by the Legislative Assembly.

(3)

The State Board of Education and the Higher Education Coordinating Commission shall establish rules necessary to ensure compliance with subsection (2) of this section in the manner required by ORS chapter 183. [Formerly 659.150; 2007 c.100 §29; 2013 c.747 §182; 2013 c.768 §146]

(formerly 659.150)

Notes of Decisions

Order issued by Chancellor of Higher Education which found University of Oregon not in violation of this section was inadequate where it did not indicate criteria to be used in determining discrimination issue, so case had to be remanded for development of criteria to evaluate reasonableness of university's actions. Aiken v. Lieuallen, 39 Or App 779, 593 P2d 1243 (1979)

Legislative history of this section did not support chancellor's determination that three year compliance schedule of federal statute (Title IX) applied to this statute. Aiken v. Lieuallen, 39 Or App 779, 593 P2d 1243 (1979)

Reasonableness requirement applies to disparate impact discrimination. Montgomery v. Board of Education, 188 Or App 63, 71 P3d 94 (2003)

Prohibition against religious discrimination requires greater adjustments to accommodate person's religious beliefs and practices than adjustments that could be required to avoid discrimination on nonreligious basis. Montgomery v. Board of Education, 188 Or App 63, 71 P3d 94 (2003)

School district can violate prohibition against subjecting person to discrimination by permitting community organization to discriminate in school program, service or activity, regardless of whether school personnel are involved. Powell v. Bunn, 341 Or 306, 142 P3d 1054 (2006)

Precipitating conduct during school activity that may ripen into discrimination at place and time outside of school program, service or activity is not discrimination. Powell v. Bunn, 341 Or 306, 142 P3d 1054 (2006)

Cases under Title VII of federal Civil Rights Act do not provide guidance in determining need for reasonable accommodation under this section. Nakashima v. Board of Education, 344 Or 497, 185 P3d 429 (2008)

For policy having disparate impact to be valid, challenged policy must clearly be reasonably necessary for existence or administration of program or activity involved. Nakashima v. Board of Education, 344 Or 497, 185 P3d 429 (2008)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Limiting married student housing to married students, (1976) Vol 37, p 1297


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021