Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.160 (2026)

Payment in case of dispute over wages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      652.160 Payment in case of dispute over wages. In case of dispute over wages, the employer must pay, without condition, and within the time set by ORS 652.140, all wages conceded by the employer to be due, leaving the employee all remedies the employee might otherwise have or be entitled to as to any balance the employee might claim.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case: Wyatt v. Body Imaging, P.C., 989 P.2d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wyatt v. Body Imaging, P.C., 989 P.2d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Any other conclusion would undermine the provisions of ORS 652.160. It provides: "In case of a dispute over wages, the employer must pay, without condition, and within the time set by ORS 652.”
Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Ctr., Inc., 478 P.3d 946 (Or. 2020). · cites it 3× “And ORS 652.160 directs that, if there is a dispute about the amount of wages due at termination, the employer still “must pay, without condition,” the amount “conceded by the employer to be due” and allow the employee to pursue the disputed balance.”
Schulstad v. Hudson Oil Co., Inc., 637 P.2d 1334 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Defendant, relying on ORS 652.160, first argues that ORS 652.150 does not apply to wages which the employer withholds subject to a dispute.”
Cheeseman v. Jackson & Perkins Wholesale, Inc., 197 P.3d 527 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “Plaintiffs’ claims allege that they were owed vacation and holiday pay, and that defendant failed to pay in a timely manner the amount of wages that defendant conceded were due, as required by ORS 652.160. Plaintiffs and defendant both moved for summary judgment under ORCP 47.”
Erickson v. Am. Golf Corp., 96 P.3d 843 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “The closest that plaintiff comes to identifying a specific statute that was violated by the substituted contract is to cite, summarily and for the first time on appeal, ORS 652.160, which provides: *687 “In case of dispute over wages, the employer must pay, without condition,…”
Meyer v. Cloudcrest Homes, LLC, 326 Or. App. 575 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” Plaintiff returned the check, believing defendant violated ORS 652.160, which requires an employer to “pay, without condition, * * * all wages conceded by the employer to be due.”
State Ex Rel. Nilsen v. Adams, 433 P.2d 831 (Or. 1967). “Defendant next contends that the court erred in giving the following instruction, which was based upon ORS 652.160: "You are instructed that in case of a dispute over wages the employer must pay, without conditions, and the employee may accept wages conceded by such employer to…”
Reed v. Curry-Kropp-Cates, Inc., 658 P.2d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “140, all wages conceded by him to be due, leaving the employe all remedies he might otherwise have or be entitled to as to any balance he might claim.”
Wales v. Walt Stallcup Enter., 2 P.3d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “2 ORS 652.160 requires an employer, in case of a dispute over wages, to pay all wages conceded to be due within the time set in ORS 652.”
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.