Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions

ORS 659A.850
Hearing

  • orders
  • fees

(1)

(a) All proceedings before the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries under this section shall be conducted as contested case proceedings under the provisions of ORS chapter 183. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the commissioner may appoint a special tribunal or hearing officer to hear the matter. The commissioner may affirm, reverse, modify or supplement the determinations, conclusions or order of any special tribunal or hearing officer appointed under this subsection. The scheduling of a hearing under this section does not affect the ability of the commissioner and any respondent to thereafter settle the matters alleged in the complaint through conference, conciliation and persuasion.

(b)

In a proceeding under this section alleging an unlawful practice under ORS 659A.145 (Discrimination against individual with disability in real property transactions prohibited) or 659A.421 (Discrimination in selling, renting or leasing real property prohibited) or discrimination under federal housing law:

(A)

Only an employee of the Bureau of Labor and Industries may be a member of a special tribunal or a hearing officer appointed to hear the matter.

(B)

An aggrieved person may intervene as a party in the proceeding. The commissioner may award prevailing party costs and reasonable attorney fees to a person who intervenes.

(2)

After considering all the evidence, the commissioner shall cause to be issued findings of facts and conclusions of law.

(3)

The commissioner shall issue an order dismissing the formal charges against any respondent not found to have engaged in any unlawful practice alleged in the complaint.

(4)

After a hearing under this section, the commissioner shall issue an appropriate cease and desist order against any respondent found to have engaged in any unlawful practice alleged in the complaint. The order must be signed by the commissioner and must take into account the need to supervise compliance with the terms of order. The order may require that the respondent:

(a)

Perform an act or series of acts designated in the order that are reasonably calculated to:

(A)

Carry out the purposes of this chapter;

(B)

Eliminate the effects of the unlawful practice that the respondent is found to have engaged in, including but not limited to paying an award of actual damages suffered by the complainant and complying with injunctive or other equitable relief; and

(C)

Protect the rights of the complainant and other persons similarly situated;

(b)

Submit reports to the commissioner on the manner of compliance with other terms and conditions specified in the commissioner’s order, and take other action as may be required to ensure compliance with the commissioner’s order; and

(c)

Refrain from any action specified in the order that would jeopardize the rights of the complainant or other persons similarly situated, or that would otherwise frustrate the purposes of this chapter.

(5)

A cease and desist order issued under subsection (4) of this section may be recorded in the County Clerk Lien Record in the manner provided by ORS 205.125 (County Clerk Lien Record) and enforced in the manner provided by ORS 205.126 (Enforcement of order or warrant recorded in County Clerk Lien Record). In addition to enforcement under ORS 205.126 (Enforcement of order or warrant recorded in County Clerk Lien Record), the order may be enforced by writ of mandamus or a civil action to compel specific performance of the order.

(6)

The commissioner may charge a respondent on a cease and desist order the actual collection fees charged to the bureau by any other governmental agency or any private collection agency assisting in the collection of the judgment. [2001 c.621 §8; 2007 c.903 §10; 2008 c.36 §12; 2009 c.110 §1; 2009 c.162 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 659.010)

Commissioner is without authority to include in a Cease and Desist Order "affirmative action" provisions that mandate preferential, as opposed to equal, employment opportunities. Sterling v. Klamath Forest Protective Assn., 19 Or App 383, 528 P2d 574 (1974)

In the respect that the commissioner's remedial authority encompasses other persons similarly situated, the proceeding is in the nature of a class action although only the individual is named as the subject of discrimination. School District No. 1 v. Nilsen, 271 Or 461, 534 P2d 1135 (1975)

Commissioner's supervisory order must be supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence that order is necessary to prevent recurrence of unlawful practice. School District No. 1 v. Nilsen, 271 Or 461, 534 P2d 1135 (1975)

Award of back pay serves to protect rights of complainant and therefore can be incorporated as part of cease and desist order. Clackamas Co. Fire Protection Dist. v. Bureau of Labor, 50 Or App 337, 624 P2d 141 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Where elimination of effect of discrimination involves payment of lost income, interest on each installment of lost income accrues from date claimant would have received that installment. Ogden v. Bureau of Labor, 299 Or 98, 699 P2d 189 (1985)

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 659.060)

Commissioner is without authority to include in a Cease and Desist Order "affirmative action" provisions that mandate preferential, as opposed to equal, employment opportunities. Sterling v. Klamath Forest Protective Assn., 19 Or App 383, 528 P2d 574 (1974)

In respect that commissioner's remedial authority encompasses other persons similarly situated, proceeding is in nature of class action although only individual is named as subject of discrimination. School District No. 1 v. Nilsen, 271 Or 461, 534 P2d 1135 (1975)

§§ 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

REMOVE ADS