Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions

ORS 659A.309
Discrimination solely because of employment of another family member prohibited

  • exceptions


(1)

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer solely because another member of an individual’s family works or has worked for that employer to:

(a)

Refuse to hire or employ an individual;

(b)

Bar or discharge from employment an individual; or

(c)

Discriminate against an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

(2)

An employer is not required to hire or employ and is not prohibited from barring or discharging an individual if such action:

(a)

Would constitute a violation of any law of this state or of the United States, or any rule promulgated pursuant thereto, with which the employer is required to comply;

(b)

Would constitute a violation of the conditions of eligibility for receipt by the employer of financial assistance from the government of this state or the United States;

(c)

Would place the individual in a position of exercising supervisory, appointment or grievance adjustment authority over a member of the individual’s family or in a position of being subject to such authority which a member of the individual’s family exercises; or

(d)

Would cause the employer to disregard a bona fide occupational requirement reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the employer’s business.

(3)

As used in this section, “member of an individual’s family” means the spouse in a marriage, son, daughter, parent, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, stepparent or stepchild of the individual. [Formerly 659.340; 2015 c.629 §56]

(formerly 659.131, then 659.340)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Refusal to employ individual in particular department of employer solely because individual's spouse already employed in department, (1980) Vol 40, p 259

§§ 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


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021