Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610

Itemized statement of amounts and purposes of deductions; timely payment to recipient of amounts deducted; employer duty to provide written explanation of earnings and deductions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      652.610 Itemized statement of amounts and purposes of deductions; timely payment to recipient of amounts deducted; employer duty to provide written explanation of earnings and deductions. (1)(a) All persons, firms, partnerships, associations, cooperative associations, corporations, municipal corporations, the state and its political subdivisions, except the federal government and its agencies, employing, in this state, during any calendar month one or more persons, shall provide the employee on regular paydays and at other times payment of wages, salary or commission is made, with an itemized statement as described in paragraph (b) of this subsection.

      (b) The statement required under this subsection must be a written statement, sufficiently itemized to show:

      (A) The date of the payment;

      (B) The dates of work covered by the payment;

      (C) The name of the employee;

      (D) The name and business registry number or business identification number;

      (E) The address and telephone number of the employer;

      (F) The rate or rates of pay;

      (G) Whether the employee is paid by the hour, shift, day or week or on a salary, piece or commission basis;

      (H) Gross wages;

      (I) Net wages;

      (J) The amount and purpose of each deduction made during the respective period of service that the payment covers;

      (K) Allowances, if any, claimed as part of minimum wage;

      (L) Unless the employee is paid on a salary basis and is exempt from overtime compensation as established by local, state or federal law, the regular hourly rate or rates of pay, the overtime rate or rates of pay, the number of regular hours worked and pay for those hours, and the number of overtime hours worked and pay for those hours; and

      (M) If the employee is paid a piece rate, the applicable piece rate or rates of pay, the number of pieces completed at each piece rate and the total pay for each rate.

      (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this subsection, the employer may provide the statement required under this subsection to the employee in electronic form pursuant to ORS 84.001 to 84.061 if:

      (A) The statement contains the information described in paragraph (b) of this subsection;

      (B) The employee expressly agrees to receive the statement in electronic form; and

      (C) The employee has the ability to print or store the statement at the time of receipt.

      (2)(a) The statement may be attached to or be a part of the check, draft, voucher or other instrument by which payment is made, or may be delivered separately from the instrument.

      (b) The statement shall be provided electronically at the time payment is made to all state officers and employees paid electronically under the state payroll system as provided by ORS 292.026.

      (c) State agencies shall provide access to electronic statements to employees who do not have regular access to computers in their workplace.

      (d) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this subsection, if an officer or employee paid under the state payroll system as provided by ORS 292.026 wants to receive payment of net salary and wages by check or to receive a paper statement of itemized payroll deductions, the officer or employee shall request paper statements or payment by check in accordance with the procedures adopted by rule by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services.

      (3) An employer may not withhold, deduct or divert any portion of an employee’s wages unless:

      (a) The employer is required to do so by law;

      (b) The deductions are voluntarily authorized in writing by the employee, are for the employee’s benefit and are recorded in the employer’s books;

      (c) The employee has voluntarily signed an authorization for a deduction for any other item, provided that the ultimate recipient of the money withheld is not the employer and that the deduction is recorded in the employer’s books;

      (d) The deduction is authorized by a collective bargaining agreement to which the employer is a party;

      (e) The deduction is authorized under ORS 18.736; or

      (f) The deduction is made from the payment of wages upon termination of employment and is authorized pursuant to a written agreement between the employee and employer for the repayment of a loan made to the employee by the employer, if all of the following conditions are met:

      (A) The employee has voluntarily signed the agreement;

      (B) The loan was paid to the employee in cash or other medium permitted by ORS 652.110;

      (C) The loan was made solely for the employee’s benefit and was not used, either directly or indirectly, for any purpose required by the employer or connected with the employee’s employment with the employer;

      (D) The amount of the deduction at termination of employment does not exceed the amount permitted to be garnished under ORS 18.385; and

      (E) The deduction is recorded in the employer’s books.

      (4) When an employer deducts an amount from an employee’s wages as required or authorized by law or agreement, the employer shall pay the amount deducted to the appropriate recipient as required by the law or agreement. The employer shall pay the amount deducted within the time required by the law or the agreement or, if the time for payment is not specified by the law or agreement, within seven days after the date the wages from which the deductions are made are due. Failure to pay the amount as required constitutes an unlawful deduction.

      (5)(a) An employer shall provide to all employees, at the time of hire, a written explanation of earnings and deductions shown on the itemized statements required under subsection (1) of this section. The explanation must include general information on:

      (A) The employer’s established regular pay period.

      (B) A comprehensive list of:

      (i) All types of pay rates that employees may be eligible for, including hourly pay, salary pay, shift differentials, piece-rate pay and commission-based pay.

      (ii) All benefit deductions and contributions.

      (iii) Every type of deduction that may apply.

      (C) The purpose of deductions that may be made during a regular pay period.

      (D) Allowances, if any, claimed as part of minimum wage.

      (E) Employer-provided benefits that may appear on the itemized statements as contributions and deductions.

      (F) All payroll codes used for pay rates and deductions, along with a detailed description or definition of each code.

      (b) An employer may satisfy the requirements of this subsection by making the information available to employees in a location easily accessible to them, such as a link to a website, a physical document posted in a central location, a shared electronic file or delivery by electronic mail.

      (c) The information required under this subsection must be sufficiently detailed to explain pay rates and deduction codes, but need not be written in complete sentences.

      (d) An employer shall review and update the information required under this subsection by January 1 of each year.

      (6) The Bureau of Labor and Industries shall:

      (a) Develop and make available to employers a model written guidance document that includes commonly used statewide deductions and that employers may use and customize to satisfy the requirements under subsection (5) of this section;

      (b) Provide the model written guidance document in English and in Spanish; and

      (c) To the extent practicable, translate the model written guidance document in other languages, if so requested.

      (7) This section does not:

      (a) Prohibit the withholding of amounts authorized in writing by the employee to be contributed by the employee to charitable organizations, including contributions made pursuant to ORS 663.110;

      (b) Prohibit deductions by checkoff dues to labor organizations or service fees when the deductions are not otherwise prohibited by law; or

      (c) Diminish or enlarge the right of any person to assert and enforce a lawful setoff or counterclaim or to attach, take, reach or apply an employee’s compensation on due legal process. [Amended by 1977 c.618 §1; 1980 s.s. c.1 §2; 1981 c.594 §5; 1995 c.753 §2; 2001 c.249 §78; 2003 c.779 §5; 2007 c.676 §1; 2013 c.369 §5; 2016 c.115 §1; 2019 c.429 §15; 2025 c.235 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Kobold v. Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kobold v. Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center (2016) ca9 · cites it 16× “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610 (3)(d). Kobold sought $24,000 in unpaid wages, as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements.”
Jones v. Four Corners Rod and Gun Club (2020) or · cites it 62× “Held: Four Corners’ viola- tion of ORS 652.610 prevented it from asserting an affirmative defense to defeat Jones’s wage claim, but Four Corners was not prevented from asserting an equi- table counterclaim for the value of the lodging benefit.”
Allen v. County of Jackson (2000) orctapp · cites it 82× “Defendant misconceives the nature of a claim for deductions that violate ORS 652.610. [9] Plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly withheld the six percent deduction from plaintiffs' wages and that defendant, thus, failed to pay all wages due to plaintiffs.”
Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp. (2005) orctapp · cites it 18× “Resolution of this issue turns on whether the deduction was "authorized" and "for the employee's benefit" under ORS 652.610. We begin with the question of authorization.”
Taylor v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. (1999) or · cites it 22× “150 by failing to pay plaintiffs wages upon termination of his employment and violated ORS 652.610 by withholding $400 from his wages as a bond.”
Nash v. Resources, Inc. (1997) ord · cites it 23× “§§ 207 and 215(a)(3) (“FLSA”) for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation; Or. Rev.Stat. § 652.610 for failure to itemize wage deductions; Or.”
Jones v. Rod (2018) orctapp · cites it 11× “In his third claim, plaintiff alleged that, without complying with the requirements of ORS 652.610, 6 defendant unlawfully deducted amounts from plaintiff's wages for lodging and utilities.”
Brinkman v. Abm Onsite Servs. W., Inc. (2019) ord · cites it 31× “615 if Plaintiff proves his claims for alleged multiple wrongful deductions under ORS § 652.610 (3). ECF 41 in Case '275. Plaintiff has cross-moved for summary judgment on the same issue.”
Johnson v. O'Malley Bros. Corp. (2017) orctapp · cites it 4× “615 creates a cause of action for violations of ORS 652.610(3) (prohibiting wage deductions with certain exceptions) and establishes a remedy of “actual damages or $200, whichever is greater.”
Allen v. County of Jackson County (2006) or · cites it 10× “” Second, plaintiffs asserted that Jackson County had violated ORS 652.610(3), which prohibits an employer from “withhold[ing], deducting] or diverting] any portion of an employee’s wages” unless certain conditions (none relevant here) apply.”
Garvin v. Timber Cutters, Inc. (1983) orctapp · cites it 8× “Second, ORS 652.610(3) precludes an employer from withholding an employe's wages except in certain specified circumstances.”
Allen v. County of Jackson County (2003) orctapp · cites it 34× ““Defendant misconceives the nature of a claim for deductions that violate ORS 652.610. Plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly withheld the six percent deduction from plaintiffs’ wages and that defendant, thus, failed to pay all wages due to plaintiffs.”
Show all 55 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(1) — 2 cases
Nash v. Resources, Inc. (1997) ord “§§ 207 and 215(a)(3) (“FLSA”) for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation; Or. Rev.Stat. § 652.610 for failure to itemize wage deductions; Or.”
Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc. (2020) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(3) — 24 cases
Allen v. County of Jackson (2000) orctapp “Defendant misconceives the nature of a claim for deductions that violate ORS 652.610. [9] Plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly withheld the six percent deduction from plaintiffs' wages and that defendant, thus, failed to pay all wages due to plaintiffs.”
Jones v. Four Corners Rod and Gun Club (2020) or “Held: Four Corners’ viola- tion of ORS 652.610 prevented it from asserting an affirmative defense to defeat Jones’s wage claim, but Four Corners was not prevented from asserting an equi- table counterclaim for the value of the lodging benefit.”
Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp. (2005) orctapp “Resolution of this issue turns on whether the deduction was "authorized" and "for the employee's benefit" under ORS 652.610. We begin with the question of authorization.”
Allen v. County of Jackson County (2006) or “” Second, plaintiffs asserted that Jackson County had violated ORS 652.610(3), which prohibits an employer from “withhold[ing], deducting] or diverting] any portion of an employee’s wages” unless certain conditions (none relevant here) apply.”
Brinkman v. Abm Onsite Servs. W., Inc. (2019) ord “615 if Plaintiff proves his claims for alleged multiple wrongful deductions under ORS § 652.610 (3). ECF 41 in Case '275. Plaintiff has cross-moved for summary judgment on the same issue.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(3)(a) — 3 cases
Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp. (2005) orctapp “Resolution of this issue turns on whether the deduction was "authorized" and "for the employee's benefit" under ORS 652.610. We begin with the question of authorization.”
Marshall v. Pollin Hotels II, LLC (2016) ord
Fredrickson v. Starbucks Corp. (2013) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(3)(b) — 8 cases
Jones v. Four Corners Rod and Gun Club (2020) or “Held: Four Corners’ viola- tion of ORS 652.610 prevented it from asserting an affirmative defense to defeat Jones’s wage claim, but Four Corners was not prevented from asserting an equi- table counterclaim for the value of the lodging benefit.”
Johnson v. O'Malley Bros. Corp. (2017) orctapp “615 creates a cause of action for violations of ORS 652.610(3) (prohibiting wage deductions with certain exceptions) and establishes a remedy of “actual damages or $200, whichever is greater.”
Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp. (2005) orctapp “Resolution of this issue turns on whether the deduction was "authorized" and "for the employee's benefit" under ORS 652.610. We begin with the question of authorization.”
Taylor v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. (1999) or “150 by failing to pay plaintiffs wages upon termination of his employment and violated ORS 652.610 by withholding $400 from his wages as a bond.”
Presley v. Bureau of Labor & Industries (2005) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(3)(c) — 3 cases
Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp. (2005) orctapp “Resolution of this issue turns on whether the deduction was "authorized" and "for the employee's benefit" under ORS 652.610. We begin with the question of authorization.”
Taylor v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. (1999) or “150 by failing to pay plaintiffs wages upon termination of his employment and violated ORS 652.610 by withholding $400 from his wages as a bond.”
Albin v. Qwest Communications Corp. (2002) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(3)(d) — 3 cases
Jones v. Four Corners Rod and Gun Club (2020) or “Held: Four Corners’ viola- tion of ORS 652.610 prevented it from asserting an affirmative defense to defeat Jones’s wage claim, but Four Corners was not prevented from asserting an equi- table counterclaim for the value of the lodging benefit.”
Garvin v. Timber Cutters, Inc. (1983) orctapp “Second, ORS 652.610(3) precludes an employer from withholding an employe's wages except in certain specified circumstances.”
Krohn v. Hood River School District (2012) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(4) — 1 case
Allen v. County of Jackson County (2006) or “” Second, plaintiffs asserted that Jackson County had violated ORS 652.610(3), which prohibits an employer from “withhold[ing], deducting] or diverting] any portion of an employee’s wages” unless certain conditions (none relevant here) apply.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(5) — 4 cases
Jones v. Four Corners Rod and Gun Club (2020) or “Held: Four Corners’ viola- tion of ORS 652.610 prevented it from asserting an affirmative defense to defeat Jones’s wage claim, but Four Corners was not prevented from asserting an equi- table counterclaim for the value of the lodging benefit.”
Jones v. Rod (2018) orctapp “In his third claim, plaintiff alleged that, without complying with the requirements of ORS 652.610, 6 defendant unlawfully deducted amounts from plaintiff's wages for lodging and utilities.”
Allen v. County of Jackson (2000) orctapp “Defendant misconceives the nature of a claim for deductions that violate ORS 652.610. [9] Plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly withheld the six percent deduction from plaintiffs' wages and that defendant, thus, failed to pay all wages due to plaintiffs.”
Allen v. County of Jackson County (2003) orctapp ““Defendant misconceives the nature of a claim for deductions that violate ORS 652.610. Plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly withheld the six percent deduction from plaintiffs’ wages and that defendant, thus, failed to pay all wages due to plaintiffs.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(5)(c) — 1 case
Jones v. Four Corners Rod and Gun Club (2020) or “Held: Four Corners’ viola- tion of ORS 652.610 prevented it from asserting an affirmative defense to defeat Jones’s wage claim, but Four Corners was not prevented from asserting an equi- table counterclaim for the value of the lodging benefit.”
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.