Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions

ORS 659A.112
Employment discrimination


It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to hire, employ or promote, to bar or discharge from employment or to discriminate in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of disability.


An employer violates subsection (1) of this section if the employer does any of the following:


The employer limits, segregates or classifies a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of the applicant or employee because the applicant or employee has a disability.


The employer participates in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a qualified job applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by ORS 659A.112 (Employment discrimination) to 659A.139 (Construction of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145), including but not limited to participating in a relationship with an employment or referral agency, a labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the employer, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs.


The employer utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability, or that perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control.


The employer excludes or otherwise denies equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because the individual is known to have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability.


The employer does not make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability who is a job applicant or employee, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the employer.


The employer denies employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is a qualified individual with a disability, if the denial is based on the need of the employer to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant.


The employer uses qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria, including those based on an individual’s uncorrected vision or unaided hearing, that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criterion, as used by the employer, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity.


The employer fails to select and administer tests relating to employment in the most effective manner to ensure that when the test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude or other characteristics of the applicant or employee that the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills of the employee or applicant. The provisions of this paragraph do not limit the ability of an employer to select or administer tests designed to measure sensory, manual or speaking skills of an employee or job applicant. [Formerly 659.436; 2007 c.70 §291; 2009 c.508 §6]
§§ 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

Notes of Decisions

Plaintiff must first meet burden of demonstrating that reasonable accommodation is available before employer has burden of demonstrating that accommodation would impose undue hardship on employer. Honstein v. Metro West Ambulance Service, Inc., 193 Or App 457, 90 P3d 1030 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

Whether individual is disabled person is determined in light of mitigating measures available to counteract or ameliorate individual's impairment. Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc., 340 Or 469, 134 P3d 161 (2006)

Protections from employment discrimination do not apply to employee against whom adverse action is taken where employee uses medical marijuana. Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI, 348 Or 159, 230 P3d 518 (2010)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021