Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions

ORS 659A.109
Discrimination against individual for using procedures in ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 prohibited


It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an individual with respect to hire or tenure or any term or condition of employment because the individual has applied for benefits or invoked or used the procedures provided for in ORS 659A.103 (Policy) to 659A.145 (Discrimination against individual with disability in real property transactions prohibited) or has given testimony under the provisions of ORS 659A.103 (Policy) to 659A.145 (Discrimination against individual with disability in real property transactions prohibited). [Formerly 659.410; 2009 c.508 §5]
§§ 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

(formerly 659.410)

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)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021