652.355
Prohibition of discrimination because of wage claim or refusal to work additional
hours; remedy. (1)
An employer may not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against an
employee because:
(a) The employee
has made a wage claim or discussed, inquired about or consulted an attorney or
agency about a wage claim;
(b) The employee
has caused to be instituted any proceedings under or related to ORS 652.310 to
652.414;
(c) The employee
has testified or is about to testify in any such proceedings;
(d) The employee
has inquired about the provisions of ORS 652.020 or has reported a violation of
or filed a complaint related to ORS 652.020;
(e) The employee
has declined to consent to work more than 55 hours in any given workweek under
ORS 652.020 or 653.265; or
(f) The employee
has declined to consent to work more than 55 hours per workweek in any given
workweek during an undue hardship period under ORS 652.020 or 653.265.
(2) A violation
of this section is an unlawful employment practice under ORS chapter 659A. A
person unlawfully discriminated against under this section may file a complaint
under ORS 659A.820 with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries.
[1975 c.397 §2; 1980 c.1 §1; 2007 c.278 §1; 2017 c.685 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Matteo Brunozzi v. Cable Commc'ns, Inc., 851 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 18× “199) and wage-claim discussions (ORS 652.355). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CCI on those claims.”
Dinicola v. State, 382 P.3d 547 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 15× “While his FLSA overtime wage claim was pending, plaintiff brought this action against the state, alleging, pursuant to ORS 652.355, ORS 659A.230, ORS 659A.030, ORS 659A.”
Brown v. Am. Prop. Mgmt. Corp., 1 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 10× “A month later, plaintiff initiated this action, alleging, among other things, that defendant had terminated him for making a wage claim in violation of ORS 652.355, which provides that: “No employer shall discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because…”
Perri v. Certified Languages Int'l, LLC, 66 P.3d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 7× “ORS 652.355; 29 USC § 215 (a)(3) (2000). The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s minimum wage and overtime claims and on a portion of each of her retaliation claims, and the court granted a directed verdict for defendant on the remaining portions of…”
El-Hakem v. BJY INC., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (D. Or. 2003).
· cites it 8× “Plaintiff argues the “same decision” defense does not apply to his retaliation claim brought pursuant to Or.Rev.Stat. § 652.355. The statute provides in part: (1) No employer shall discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because: (a) The employee has…”
Krouse v. Ply Gem Pac. Windows Corp., 803 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Or. 2011).
· cites it 5× “Wage Claim Retaliation pursuant to ORS 652.355 and 653.060 Plaintiffs fifth claim alleges that defendant discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff after he brought wage claims in violation of ORS 653.”
El-Hakem v. Bjy Inc., 415 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “rly Denied El-Hakem’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Challenging Application of the “Same Decision” Defense to His Wage-Retaliation Claim El-Hakem contends that the district court erred in allowing the Defendants to assert the “same decision” defense to his wage…”
McQuary v. Bel Air Convalescent Home, Inc., 684 P.2d 21 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“This conclusion is consistent with established Oregon law. Statutes which protect employes against retaliation do not require that the alleged violation which the employe claims be ultimately proved.”
Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC, 482 P.3d 811 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“inst employee for making complaints concern- ing “unlawful activity under the securities laws,” because federal statute allowing a wrongful discharge claim on that basis was not “adequate under Oregon law to provide a com- plete remedy,” and noting that Oregon law does not allow…”
Forsberg v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 623 F. Supp. 117 (D. Or. 1985).
· cites it 2× “220; and (3) the Oregon Wage Claim Statute, ORS 652.355. PNB urges this court to decline to assert pendent jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.”
Love v. Polk Cnty. Fire Dist., 149 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“, ORS 652.355 (protecting employees who consult an attorney or agency about a wage claim); ORS 654.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.355(1) — 2 cases
Brown v. Am. Prop. Mgmt. Corp., 1 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“A month later, plaintiff initiated this action, alleging, among other things, that defendant had terminated him for making a wage claim in violation of ORS 652.355, which provides that: “No employer shall discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.355(2) — 2 cases
Brown v. Am. Prop. Mgmt. Corp., 1 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“A month later, plaintiff initiated this action, alleging, among other things, that defendant had terminated him for making a wage claim in violation of ORS 652.355, which provides that: “No employer shall discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.355(l) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.355(l)(a) — 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.