Prohibited conduct by employer
Mentioned in
ReOregon: Additional Contact Options
“Any employee, OHCS-DRR consultant or subrecipient who has knowledge of fraud, waste or abuse, or who has good reason to suspect that such conduct has occurred are required to report their concerns.”
Bibliographic info
Discrimination at Work
“Oregon laws protect you from being discriminated against at work. That means you can’t be fired or demoted, paid less, or otherwise treated differently because of certain characteristics about you.”
Bibliographic info
Source:
Section 659A.199 — Prohibited conduct by employer, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors659A.html.
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
Up to date