653.261
Minimum employment conditions; overtime; rules; meal periods; exemptions;
penalty. (1)(a)
The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries may adopt rules
prescribing such minimum conditions of employment, excluding minimum wages, in
any occupation as may be necessary for the preservation of the health of
employees. The rules may include, but are not limited to, minimum meal periods
and rest periods, and maximum hours of work, but not less than eight hours per
day or 40 hours per workweek; however, after 40 hours of work in one workweek
overtime may be paid, but in no case at a rate higher than one and one-half
times the regular rate of pay of the employees when computed without benefit of
commissions, overrides, spiffs and similar benefits.
(b) As used in
this subsection, “workweek” means a fixed period of time established by an
employer that reflects a regularly recurring period of 168 hours or seven
consecutive 24-hour periods. A workweek may begin on any day of the week and
any hour of the day and need not coincide with a calendar week. The beginning
of the workweek may be changed if the change is intended to be permanent and is
not designed to evade overtime requirements.
(2) Rules adopted
by the commissioner pursuant to subsection (1) of this section do not apply to
individuals employed by this state or a political subdivision or
quasi-municipal corporation thereof if other provisions of law or collective
bargaining agreements prescribe rules pertaining to conditions of employment
referred to in subsection (1) of this section, including meal periods, rest
periods, maximum hours of work and overtime.
(3) Except as
provided in ORS 653.258 (2)(a), rules adopted by the commissioner pursuant to
subsection (1) of this section regarding meal periods and rest periods do not
apply to nurses who provide acute care in hospital settings if provisions of
collective bargaining agreements entered into by the nurses prescribe rules
concerning meal periods and rest periods.
(4)(a) The
commissioner shall adopt rules regarding meal periods for employees who serve
food or beverages, receive tips and report the tips to the employer.
(b) In rules
adopted by the commissioner under paragraph (a) of this subsection, the
commissioner shall permit an employee to waive a meal period. However, an
employer may not coerce an employee into waiving a meal period.
(c)
Notwithstanding ORS 653.256 (1), in addition to any other penalty provided by
law, the commissioner may assess a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 against
an employer that the commissioner finds has coerced an employee into waiving a
meal period in violation of this subsection. Each violation is a separate and
distinct offense. In the case of a continuing violation, each day’s continuance
is a separate and distinct violation.
(d) Civil
penalties authorized by this subsection shall be imposed in the manner provided
in ORS 183.745. All sums collected as penalties under this subsection shall be
applied and paid over as provided in ORS 653.256 (4). [1967 c.596 §5 (2), (3);
1971 c.492 §1; 1981 c.361 §2; 1985 c.99 §9; 2001 c.466 §1; 2007 c.167 §§1,2;
2011 c.58 §1; 2017 c.685 §§6,7; 2023 c.507 §27]
Notes of Decisions
Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center (2008)
Or. · cites it 12×
“Defendants were required [to] provide [their] employees with a paid rest period of not less than ten * * * minutes for each period of four hours in which the employee worked, or worked the major part of the four hour period.”
Justice v. Rockwell Collins, Inc. (2015)
D. Or. · cites it 6×
“He filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on December 31, 2012, asserting the following claims against Rockwell: (1) unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Or. Rev.Stat. § 653.261; (2) retaliation for reporting unpaid overtime in violation of…”
Faverty v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc. (1995)
Or. Ct. App. · cites it 8×
“Similarly, defendant asserts that ORS 653.261 authorizes the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries to prescribe maximum hours of employment, and that plaintiff again has failed to plead a violation of that statute or any regulations promulgated thereunder.”
Maza v. Waterford Operations, LLC (2019)
Or. Ct. App. · cites it 6×
“Finally, our conclusion that BOLI intended that meal periods be mandatory is consistent with our observa- tion that both ORS 653.261 and OAR 839-020-0050 include statements that the conditions of employment, including minimum meal periods, are to be prescribed “as may be…”
Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center (2007)
Or. Ct. App. · cites it 9×
“Plaintiffs filed a complaint containing 11 claims for relief, only six of which are at issue on appeal (the “meal and rest break claims”): claims for (1) regular wages and (2) penalty wages based on allegations that defendants failed to provide paid rest breaks as required by…”
Athena v. Pelican Brewing Co. (2025)
Or. Ct. App. · cites it 28×
“055 expressly provides that an employer is liable to an employee for “the wages to which the employee is entitled” under ORS 653.261, plain- tiffs have a private right of action to recover wages based on shortened meal periods.”
Cornier v. Paul Tulacz, DVM PC (2001)
Or. Ct. App. · cites it 5×
“Plaintiff brought this action against her former employer alleging, among other claims not relevant to this appeal, that during her employment defendant failed to pay her overtime, a violation of ORS 653.261, and that when she quit defendant willfully failed to pay her…”
Migis v. Autozone, Inc. (2016)
Or. Ct. App. · cites it 2×
“055(1)—for unpaid overtime wages, a violation of ORS 653.261 (Type 2 penalties)—requires a finding of willfulness.”
Lemus v. Timberland Apartments, L.L.C. (2012)
D. Or. · cites it 4×
“Rev.Stat. §§ 653.010 to 653.261, Defendants contend, however, that because Lemus only brings suit for minimum wage violations under Or.”
Aguirre v. Albertson's, Inc. (2005)
Or. Ct. App. · cites it 2×
“See ORS 653.261; 29 USC § 216 (b). More specifically, those two claims alleged that Albertson’s failed to pay plaintiff for so-called “off-the-clock” work — i.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.261(1) — 10 cases
Athena v. Pelican Brewing Co. (2025)
Or. Ct. App.
“055 expressly provides that an employer is liable to an employee for “the wages to which the employee is entitled” under ORS 653.261, plain- tiffs have a private right of action to recover wages based on shortened meal periods.”
Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center (2008)
Or.
“Defendants were required [to] provide [their] employees with a paid rest period of not less than ten * * * minutes for each period of four hours in which the employee worked, or worked the major part of the four hour period.”
Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center (2007)
Or. Ct. App.
“Plaintiffs filed a complaint containing 11 claims for relief, only six of which are at issue on appeal (the “meal and rest break claims”): claims for (1) regular wages and (2) penalty wages based on allegations that defendants failed to provide paid rest breaks as required by…”
Cornier v. Paul Tulacz, DVM PC (2001)
Or. Ct. App.
“Plaintiff brought this action against her former employer alleging, among other claims not relevant to this appeal, that during her employment defendant failed to pay her overtime, a violation of ORS 653.261, and that when she quit defendant willfully failed to pay her…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.261(1)(a) — 6 cases
Maza v. Waterford Operations, LLC (2019)
Or. Ct. App.
“Finally, our conclusion that BOLI intended that meal periods be mandatory is consistent with our observa- tion that both ORS 653.261 and OAR 839-020-0050 include statements that the conditions of employment, including minimum meal periods, are to be prescribed “as may be…”
Athena v. Pelican Brewing Co. (2025)
Or. Ct. App.
“055 expressly provides that an employer is liable to an employee for “the wages to which the employee is entitled” under ORS 653.261, plain- tiffs have a private right of action to recover wages based on shortened meal periods.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.261(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.261(3) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.261(4) — 1 case
Maza v. Waterford Operations, LLC (2019)
Or. Ct. App.
“Finally, our conclusion that BOLI intended that meal periods be mandatory is consistent with our observa- tion that both ORS 653.261 and OAR 839-020-0050 include statements that the conditions of employment, including minimum meal periods, are to be prescribed “as may be…”
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.