Discrimination against individual for using procedures in ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 prohibited
Source:
Section 659A.109 — Discrimination against individual for using procedures in ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 prohibited, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors659A.html.
Notes of Decisions
Factfinder could believe evidence showing that plaintiff was fired by defendant because he had lied about his disability status and extent of his ability to work and not because plaintiff filed workers’ compensation claim. Ledesma v. Freightliner Corp., 97 Or App 379, 776 P2d 43 (1989)
Where terminated employee sued former employer for wrongful discharge alleging employer violated covenants of good faith and fair dealing in express and implied employment contract, termination of employee in order to deprive employee of benefits to which employee would otherwise have become entitled if employment continued is breach of obligation to perform in good faith. Messer v. Portland Adventist Medical Center, 707 F Supp 449 (D. Or. 1989)
Prima facie case of retaliatory discharge is established by proving: 1) plaintiff invoked workers’ compensation system; 2) plaintiff was discriminated against in tenure, terms or conditions of employment; and 3) that discrimination was result of plaintiff invoking system. Stanich v. Precision Body and Paint, Inc., 151 Or App 446, 950 P2d 328 (1997)
“Invoking” of procedures provided for in ORS chapter 656 includes worker’s reporting of on-the-job injury or perception by employer that worker has been injured on job or will report injury. McPhail v. Milwaukie Lumber Company, 165 Or App 596, 999 P2d 1144 (2000)
Claimant alleging mixed motive for termination is subject to same evidentiary burden that applies where plaintiff alleges motive for termination is pretext. Hardie v. Legacy Health System, 167 Or App 425, 6 P3d 531 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Statute protects from retaliation employee who applies for benefits or invokes or utilizes procedures prohibiting discrimination against employees even if employee is not disabled. Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 230 Or App 715, 218 P3d 542 (2009)
Up to date