Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions

ORS 659A.230
Discrimination for initiating or aiding in criminal or civil proceedings prohibited

  • remedies not exclusive


(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 criminal activity by any person, has in good faith caused a complainant’s information or complaint to be filed against any person, has in good faith cooperated with any law enforcement agency conducting a criminal investigation, has in good faith brought a civil proceeding against an employer or has testified in good faith at a civil proceeding or criminal trial.

(2)

For the purposes of this section, “complainant’s information” and “complaint” have the meanings given those terms in ORS 131.005 (General definitions).

(3)

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. [Formerly 659.550]
§§ 659A.250 to 659A.262

(formerly 659.280 to 659.290)

Law Review Citations

26 WLR 394-395 (1990)

Notes of Decisions

To be protected for reporting criminal activity, employee must believe that subject matter of report involves criminal conduct at time that report is made. Roberts v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co., 242 Or App 474, 255 P3d 628 (2011), Sup Ct review denied

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)

Where plaintiff, employed by defendant as in-home personal assistant who performed domestic and other tasks for defendant, reported defendant's possession and display of child pornography to law enforcement and assisted in investigation resulting in defendant's conviction, was fired from employment, plaintiff was not required to show plaintiff met definition of employee in ORS 659A.001 to prevail on claim for wrongful discharge for plaintiff's fulfillment of important public duty. McManus v. Auchincloss, 271 Or App 765, 353 P3d 17 (2015), Sup Ct review denied

Under plain meaning of this section, former employee cannot bring claim as "employee." Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2017)

§§ 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