652.120
Establishing regular payday; pay intervals; agreement to pay wages at future
date. (1) Every
employer shall establish and maintain a regular payday, at which date the
employer shall pay all employees the wages due and owing to them.
(2) Payday may
not extend beyond a period of 35 days from the time that the employees entered
upon their work, or from the date of the last regular payday.
(3) This section
does not prevent the employer from establishing and maintaining paydays at more
frequent intervals.
(4) This section
does not prevent any employer from entering into a written agreement, prior to
the rendering of any services, and mutually satisfactory with the employer’s
employees, as to the payment of wages at a future date.
(5) When an
employer has notice that an employee has not been paid the full amount the
employee is owed on a regular payday and there is no dispute between the
employer and the employee regarding the amount of the unpaid wages:
(a) If the unpaid
amount is less than five percent of the employee’s gross wages due on the
regular payday, the employer shall pay the employee the unpaid amount no later
than the next regular payday; or
(b) If the unpaid
amount is five percent or more of the employee’s gross wages due on the regular
payday, the employer shall pay the employee the unpaid amount within three days
after the employer has notice of the unpaid amount, excluding Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays. [Amended by 1961 c.662 §1; 2007 c.453 §1]
Notes of Decisions
North Marion Sch. Dist. 15 Ex Rel. Trejo v. Acstar Ins., 169 P.3d 1224 (Or. 2007).
· cites it 36× “As BOLI acknowledges in its brief, the regular pay records that the commissioner is authorized to inspect are incidents of an employer's obligation under ORS 652.120 to establish regular paydays for its employees.”
Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 3× “First, she alleged that Good Samaritan failed to pay all wages owed her at each pay period, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.120 . Or. Rev. Stat.”
Allen v. Cnty. of Jackson, 7 P.3d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 8× “610(3) by making an improper deduction from its employees' wages and violated ORS 652.120 by failing to pay each employee the full amount due and owing to them on each payday.”
Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp., 107 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Nothing in the legislature's action in creating a new, separate claim suggests that it intended to abolish the existing remedy; rather, the legislature added a new remedy to the existing one.”
Gist v. ZoAn Mgmt., Inc., 473 P.3d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “The complaint sought unpaid wages (ORS 652.120; ORS 653.010), unpaid overtime wages (ORS 653.”
Allen v. Cnty. of Jackson Cnty., 129 P.3d 694 (Or. 2006).
· cites it 3× “First, plaintiffs asserted that Jackson County had violated ORS 652.120, which provides, in part: “(1) Every employer shall establish and maintain a regular payday, at which date all employees shall be paid the wages due and owing to them.”
Pascoe v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (D. Or. 2001).
· cites it 2× “However, ORS 652.120 requires employers to set a regular payday and prohibits employers from setting a regular payday more than 35 days beyond the date of the last regular payday.”
Gessele v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Or. 2014).
· cites it 2× “110, and (8) failed to pay all wages when due as required by Oregon Revised Statute § 652.120. On December 15, 2010, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First through Fifth Claims.”
Jones v. Four Corners Rod & Gun Club, 456 P.3d 616 (Or. 2020).
“]” Throughout the term of employment, the employer must pay the wages due on an established pay day, ORS 652.120, and when the employment terminates—whether through discharge or mutual agreement—“all wages earned and unpaid” are “due and payable not later than the end of the…”
Arken v. City of Portland, 263 P.3d 975 (Or. 2011).
“” ORS 652.120(1); Allen, 340 Or at 155 . We are persuaded that, at the end of the recalculations conducted by PERS, the Window Retirees were provided with the correct benefit amounts taking into consideration the effects of both the earnings credit allocation reduction and the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.120(1) — 10 cases
North Marion Sch. Dist. 15 Ex Rel. Trejo v. Acstar Ins., 169 P.3d 1224 (Or. 2007).
“As BOLI acknowledges in its brief, the regular pay records that the commissioner is authorized to inspect are incidents of an employer's obligation under ORS 652.120 to establish regular paydays for its employees.”
Arken v. City of Portland, 263 P.3d 975 (Or. 2011).
“” ORS 652.120(1); Allen, 340 Or at 155 . We are persuaded that, at the end of the recalculations conducted by PERS, the Window Retirees were provided with the correct benefit amounts taking into consideration the effects of both the earnings credit allocation reduction and the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.120(2) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.120(5) — 2 cases
Gist v. ZoAn Mgmt., Inc., 473 P.3d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“The complaint sought unpaid wages (ORS 652.120; ORS 653.010), unpaid overtime wages (ORS 653.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.120(5)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.120(5)(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.