ORS 659A.199 - Prohibited conduct by employer

ORS 659A.199
Prohibited conduct by employer

(1)

It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.

(2)

The remedies provided by this chapter are in addition to any common law remedy or other remedy that may be available to an employee for the conduct constituting a violation of this section. [2009 c.524 §2]

(Disclosures by Public and Nonprofit Employees)

Notes of Decisions

To establish prima facie case of retaliation, plaintiff must establish that (1) plaintiff engaged in protected activity; (2) plaintiff suffered adverse employment decision; and (3) there is a causal link between protected activity and adverse employment decision. Neighorn v. Quest Health Care, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Or. 2012)

To establish causation between protected activity and adverse employment decision, plaintiff must establish that protected activity was substantial factor in motivating employer’s decision. Larmanger v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Or. 2012)

This section extends whistleblowing protections to private sector employees; this section does not apply to public employers. Lindsey v. Clatskanie People’s Utility District, 140 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (D. Or. 2015)

As used in this section, “reported” means report of information to either external or internal authority. Brunozzi v. Cable Communications Inc., 851 F3d 990 (9th Cir. 2017)

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)

“Employer” includes both private entities and public bodies. Burley v. Clackamas County, 298 Or. App. 462, 446 P3d 564 (2019), Sup Ct review denied

________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______
________ ____ ____ ______

Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions

ORS 659A.199
Prohibited conduct by employer

(1)

(2)

Notes of Decisions

Source

Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions

ORS 659A.199 Prohibited conduct by employer

(1)

(2)

Notes of Decisions

Source

ORS 659A.199
Prohibited conduct by employer