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
Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016).
· 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 & Gun Club, 456 P.3d 616 (Or. 2020).
· 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. Cnty. of Jackson, 7 P.3d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· 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., 107 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· 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 Enter., Inc., 988 P.2d 384 (Or. 1999).
· 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., 982 F. Supp. 1427 (D. Or. 1997).
· 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, 418 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· 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., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (D. Or. 2019).
· 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., 397 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· 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. Cnty. of Jackson Cnty., 129 P.3d 694 (Or. 2006).
· 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., 658 P.2d 1164 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 8× “Second, ORS 652.610(3) precludes an employer from withholding an employe's wages except in certain specified circumstances.”
Allen v. Cnty. of Jackson Cnty., 82 P.3d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· 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.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(1) — 2 cases
Nash v. Resources, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 1427 (D. Or. 1997).
“§§ 207 and 215(a)(3) (“FLSA”) for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation; Or. Rev.Stat. § 652.610 for failure to itemize wage deductions; Or.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(3) — 24 cases
Allen v. Cnty. of Jackson, 7 P.3d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“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 & Gun Club, 456 P.3d 616 (Or. 2020).
“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., 107 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“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. Cnty. of Jackson Cnty., 129 P.3d 694 (Or. 2006).
“” 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., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (D. Or. 2019).
“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., 107 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“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.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(3)(b) — 8 cases
Jones v. Four Corners Rod & Gun Club, 456 P.3d 616 (Or. 2020).
“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., 397 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“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., 107 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“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 Enter., Inc., 988 P.2d 384 (Or. 1999).
“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.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(3)(c) — 3 cases
Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp., 107 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“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 Enter., Inc., 988 P.2d 384 (Or. 1999).
“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.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(3)(d) — 3 cases
Jones v. Four Corners Rod & Gun Club, 456 P.3d 616 (Or. 2020).
“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., 658 P.2d 1164 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“Second, ORS 652.610(3) precludes an employer from withholding an employe's wages except in certain specified circumstances.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(4) — 1 case
Allen v. Cnty. of Jackson Cnty., 129 P.3d 694 (Or. 2006).
“” 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 & Gun Club, 456 P.3d 616 (Or. 2020).
“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, 418 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“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. Cnty. of Jackson, 7 P.3d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“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. Cnty. of Jackson Cnty., 82 P.3d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
““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 & Gun Club, 456 P.3d 616 (Or. 2020).
“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.