652.220
Prohibition of discriminatory wage rates based on protected class; exceptions;
employer not to discriminate against employee who is complainant. (1) It is an unlawful employment
practice under ORS chapter 659A for an employer to:
(a) In any manner
discriminate between employees on the basis of a protected class in the payment
of wages or other compensation for work of comparable character.
(b) Pay wages or
other compensation to any employee at a rate greater than that at which the
employer pays wages or other compensation to employees of a protected class for
work of comparable character.
(c) Screen job
applicants based on current or past compensation.
(d) Determine
compensation for a position based on current or past compensation of a
prospective employee. This paragraph is not intended to prevent an employer
from considering the compensation of a current employee of the employer during
a transfer, move or hire of the employee to a new position with the same
employer.
(2)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section:
(a) An employer
may pay employees for work of comparable character at different compensation
levels if all of the difference in compensation levels is based on a bona fide
factor that is related to the position in question and is based on:
(A) A seniority
system;
(B) A merit
system;
(C) A system that
measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, including piece-rate
work;
(D) Workplace
locations;
(E) Travel, if
travel is necessary and regular for the employee;
(F) Education;
(G) Training;
(H) Experience;
or
(I) Any
combination of the factors described in this paragraph, if the combination of
factors accounts for the entire compensation differential.
(b) An employer
may pay employees for work of comparable character at different compensation
levels on the basis of one or more of the factors listed in paragraph (a) of
this subsection that are contained in a collective bargaining agreement.
(3) An employer
may not in any manner discriminate in the payment of wages or other
compensation against any employee because the employee has filed a complaint
under ORS 659A.820 or in a proceeding under ORS 652.210 to 652.235 or 659A.885
or has testified, or is about to testify, or because the employer believes that
the employee may testify, in any investigation or proceedings pursuant to ORS
652.210 to 652.235, 659A.830 or 659A.885 or in a criminal action pursuant to
ORS 652.210 to 652.235.
(4) An employer
may not reduce the compensation level of an employee to comply with the
provisions of this section.
(5) It is not a
violation of this section for an employer to pay a different level of
compensation to an employee who:
(a) Pursuant to a
claim for a compensable injury under ORS chapter 656, receives wages for
modified work; or
(b) As a result
of a medical condition, is temporarily performing modified work that is:
(A) Authorized by
a medical professional licensed under ORS chapter 677; or
(B) Requested by
the employee and authorized by the employer in a manner that does not
discriminate against employees on the basis of a protected class.
(6) Amounts owed
to an employee because of the failure of the employer to comply with the
requirements of this section are unpaid wages.
(7) An employee
who asserts a violation under this section may file a complaint with the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries under ORS 659A.820, a civil
action under ORS 652.230 or a civil action under 659A.885.
(8) An employer
shall post a notice of the requirements of this section in every establishment
where employees work. The Bureau of Labor and Industries shall make available
to employers a template that meets the required notice provisions of this
section. [1955 c.193 §2; 2017 c.197 §2; 2019 c.617 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Jennifer Freyd v. Univ. of Oregon, 990 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 8× “Declining to certify questions to the Oregon Supreme Court, the panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment on Freyd’s claim under Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.220 , ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court.”
City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 690 P.2d 475 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 4× “" The Equal Pay Act, ORS 652.220(1), provided: "No employer shall: "(a) In any manner discriminate between the sexes in the payment of wages for work of comparable character, the performance of which requires comparable skills.”
Jancey v. Sch. Comm., 421 Mass. 482 (Mass. 1995).
· cites it 3× “” He based this conclusion on the legislative history of MEPA, the legislative history of FEPA 7 and on interpretations of the Oregon comparable work law, Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.220 (1987). 8 The judge ruled that the test for determining whether the work of the cafeteria workers…”
Allender v. Univ. of Portland, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (D. Or. 2010).
· cites it 10× “§ 206 (d), and its Oregon counterpart, Or.Rev.Stat. § 652.220, as well as Oregon law prohibiting discrimination in employment, Or.”
Delima v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 616 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (D. Or. 2008).
· cites it 12× “The fourth claim alleges that Home Depot violated Or.Rev.Stat. § 652.220 by discriminating “between the sexes in the payment of wages for work of comparable character, the performance of which requires comparable skills.”
Nash v. Resources, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 1427 (D. Or. 1997).
· cites it 4× “*1440 Defendants’ second affirmative defense is that in all matters pertaining to plaintiff, defendants acted reasonably, in good faith, and with reasonable grounds for believing that their actions were not in violation of Or.Rev.Stat. § 652.220. Nash has withdrawn this claim.”
Smith v. Bull Run Sch. Dist. No. 45, 722 P.2d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 5× “They commenced this action for damages under the state and federal equal pay acts, ORS 652.220 and 29 USC § 206 (1982), claiming that defendant paid them less than it paid male employes for comparable and equal work during the period September, 1980, to September, 1982.”
Forsberg v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 623 F. Supp. 117 (D. Or. 1985).
· cites it 2× “030; (2) the Oregon Equal Pay Act, ORS 652.220; and (3) the Oregon Wage Claim Statute, ORS 652.”
City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 656 P.2d 353 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “" ORS 652.220(1). The Fair Employment Practices Act, during the relevant period, stated: "* * * [I]t is an unlawful employment practice: *355 "(1) for an employer, because of the race, religion, color, sex or national origin of any individual * * * to refuse to hire or employ or…”
Freyd v. Univ. of Or., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1284 (D. Or. 2019).
· cites it 5× “Pay Equity Claims ORS 652.220, Title VII, ORS 659A.030, Title IX, the Equal Pay Act, and the Oregon Equal Rights Amendment all prohibit an employer from discriminating between similarly situated employees on the basis of gender.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.220(1) — 6 cases
City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 690 P.2d 475 (Or. 1984).
“" The Equal Pay Act, ORS 652.220(1), provided: "No employer shall: "(a) In any manner discriminate between the sexes in the payment of wages for work of comparable character, the performance of which requires comparable skills.”
City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 656 P.2d 353 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
“" ORS 652.220(1). The Fair Employment Practices Act, during the relevant period, stated: "* * * [I]t is an unlawful employment practice: *355 "(1) for an employer, because of the race, religion, color, sex or national origin of any individual * * * to refuse to hire or employ or…”
Allender v. Univ. of Portland, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (D. Or. 2010).
“§ 206 (d), and its Oregon counterpart, Or.Rev.Stat. § 652.220, as well as Oregon law prohibiting discrimination in employment, Or.”
Smith v. Bull Run Sch. Dist. No. 45, 722 P.2d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“They commenced this action for damages under the state and federal equal pay acts, ORS 652.220 and 29 USC § 206 (1982), claiming that defendant paid them less than it paid male employes for comparable and equal work during the period September, 1980, to September, 1982.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.220(1)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.220(1)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.220(2) — 2 cases
Smith v. Bull Run Sch. Dist. No. 45, 722 P.2d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“They commenced this action for damages under the state and federal equal pay acts, ORS 652.220 and 29 USC § 206 (1982), claiming that defendant paid them less than it paid male employes for comparable and equal work during the period September, 1980, to September, 1982.”
Allender v. Univ. of Portland, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (D. Or. 2010).
“§ 206 (d), and its Oregon counterpart, Or.Rev.Stat. § 652.220, as well as Oregon law prohibiting discrimination in employment, Or.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.220(2)(a) — 1 case
City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 690 P.2d 475 (Or. 1984).
“" The Equal Pay Act, ORS 652.220(1), provided: "No employer shall: "(a) In any manner discriminate between the sexes in the payment of wages for work of comparable character, the performance of which requires comparable skills.”
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.