Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions

ORS 659A.090
Definitions for ORS 659A.090 to 659A.099


As used in ORS 659A.090 (Definitions for ORS 659A.090 to 659A.099) to 659A.099 (Short title):

(1)

Notwithstanding ORS 659A.001 (Definitions), “employee” means an individual who performs services for compensation for an employer for an average of at least 20 hours per week. “Employee” includes all individuals employed at any site owned or operated by an employer, but does not include independent contractors.

(2)

Notwithstanding ORS 659A.001 (Definitions), “employer” means:

(a)

A person, firm, corporation, partnership, legal representative or other business entity that engages in any business, industry, profession or activity in this state and that employs 25 or more persons in the State of Oregon for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the year in which leave is taken under ORS 659A.093 (Employer required to provide leave) or the year immediately preceding the year in which the leave is to be taken;

(b)

The state, and a department, agency, board or commission of the state; and

(c)

A local government, including, but not limited to, a county, city, town, municipal corporation, independent public corporation or political subdivision of the state.

(3)

“Period of military conflict” means a period of war:

(a)

Declared by the United States Congress;

(b)

Declared by executive order of the President of the United States; or

(c)

In which a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States is ordered to active duty pursuant to Title 32 of the United States Code or section 12301 or 12302 of Title 10 of the United States Code. [2009 c.559 §3]
§§ 659A.250 to 659A.262

(formerly 659.280 to 659.290)

Law Review Citations

26 WLR 394-395 (1990)

§§ 659A.150 to 659A.186

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


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021