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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.360 (2026)

Contract exempting employer from liability or penalty not valid; exceptions

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

      652.360 Contract exempting employer from liability or penalty not valid; exceptions. (1) An employer may not by special contract or any other means exempt the employer from any provision of or liability or penalty imposed by ORS 652.310 to 652.414 or any statute relating to the payment of wages, except insofar as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries in writing approves a special contract or other arrangement between the employer and one or more of the employer’s employees. The commissioner may not give approval unless the commissioner finds that such contract or arrangement will not prejudicially affect the interest of the public or of the employees involved, and the commissioner may at any time retract such approval, first giving the employer not less than 30 days’ notice in writing.

      (2) A settlement between an employer and an employee of a known and identified claim arising under ORS 652.310 to 652.414 or any statute relating to the payment of wages does not require the commissioner’s approval if the settlement does not provide for the employee to relinquish a claim for additional or future violations. [Amended by 2001 c.116 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Jones v. Four Corners Rod & Gun Club, 456 P.3d 616 (Or. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. Four Corners Rod & Gun Club, 456 P.3d 616 (Or. 2020). · cites it 7× “414 or any statute relating to the payment of wages, [unless the Bureau of Labor and Industries approves the arrangement in writing].”
Erickson v. Am. Golf Corp., 96 P.3d 843 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 18× “The trial court made that ruling based on its understanding of ORS 652.360. 6 To put the issue in perspective, we begin by describing the general legal principles *680 that bear on the ability of an employer and employee to set the terms of compensation by contract, and we…”
Taylor v. Werner Enter., Inc., 988 P.2d 384 (Or. 1999). · cites it 6× “]” Finally, ORS 652.360 provides, in part: “No employer may by special contract or any other means exempt the employer from any provision of or liability or penalty imposed by ORS 652.”
Jones v. Rod, 418 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “360 explicitly provided that an employee "may not waive his rights under the wage-claim statutes pursuant to an express contract without prior approval" of the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries. Id . (emphasis in original). We concluded that, "[i]f an express…”
Gist v. ZoAn Mgmt., Inc., 473 P.3d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “” ORS 652.360(1). In his argument, plaintiff appears to assume the primacy of the Driver Services Agreement over his rights under Oregon’s wage and hour laws.”
Garvin v. Timber Cutters, Inc., 658 P.2d 1164 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Finally, ORS 652.360 also prohibited defendant from retaining plaintiff's check.”
Duncan v. Off. Depot, 973 F. Supp. 1171 (D. Or. 1997). · cites it 2× “The request for plaintiffs signature makes no reference to the intended deductions, and the paragraph refers only to the goals set for sales in the first part of 1996. Moreover, it appears that defendant could not make the deduction it did, even with a writing by plaintiff.”
Schulstad v. Hudson Oil Co., Inc., 637 P.2d 1334 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “3 The trial court found that this provision violates ORS 652.360, which provides: “No employer may by special contract or any other means exempt himself from any provision of or liability or penalty imposed by ORS 652.”
Kling v. Exxon Corp., 703 P.2d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 652.360. If an express but unapproved contract would not relieve defendant of its statutory duty then, a fortiori, defendant may not resort to the affirmative defense of waiver or estoppel to escape that duty.”
Vento v. Versatile Logic Sys. Corp., 3 P.3d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “See ORS 652.360 (employee may not waive rights under wage claim statutes pursuant to express contract without prior approval of Bureau of Labor and Industries); 29 USC § 216 (payment of unpaid overtime compensation to be supervised by Secretary of Labor or by court).”
State Ex Rel. Roberts v. Duco-Lam, Inc., 696 P.2d 561 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “Plaintiff argues that ORS 652.360 renders the wage reduction agreements entered into by defendants and their employes illegal.”
Gist v. ZoAn Mgmt., Inc., 513 P.3d 578 (Or. 2022). · cites it 2× “Therefore, we reject plaintiff’s claim that the parties’ arbitration agreement vio- lates ORS 652.360. Because the arbitration provision does not violate that statute, it is not unconscionable.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.360(1) — 4 cases
Jones v. Four Corners Rod & Gun Club, 456 P.3d 616 (Or. 2020). “414 or any statute relating to the payment of wages, [unless the Bureau of Labor and Industries approves the arrangement in writing].”
Gist v. ZoAn Mgmt., Inc., 473 P.3d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “” ORS 652.360(1). In his argument, plaintiff appears to assume the primacy of the Driver Services Agreement over his rights under Oregon’s wage and hour laws.”
Gist v. ZoAn Mgmt., Inc., 513 P.3d 578 (Or. 2022). “Therefore, we reject plaintiff’s claim that the parties’ arbitration agreement vio- lates ORS 652.360. Because the arbitration provision does not violate that statute, it is not unconscionable.”
Mallory v. Iron Shield, LLC (D. Or. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.360(2) — 2 cases
Gist v. ZoAn Mgmt., Inc., 473 P.3d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “” ORS 652.360(1). In his argument, plaintiff appears to assume the primacy of the Driver Services Agreement over his rights under Oregon’s wage and hour laws.”
Erickson v. Am. Golf Corp., 96 P.3d 843 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “The trial court made that ruling based on its understanding of ORS 652.360. 6 To put the issue in perspective, we begin by describing the general legal principles *680 that bear on the ability of an employer and employee to set the terms of compensation by contract, and we…”
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.