654.062 Notice
of violation to employer by worker; complaint by worker to director;
inspection; employee protections; rebuttable presumption; rules. (1) Every employee should notify
the employer of any violation of law, regulation or standard pertaining to
safety and health in the place of employment when the violation comes to the
knowledge of the employee.
(2) However, any
employee or representative of the employee may complain to the Director of the
Department of Consumer and Business Services or any authorized representatives
of the director of any violation of law, regulation or standard pertaining to safety
and health in the place of employment, whether or not the employee also
notifies the employer.
(3) Upon
receiving any employee complaint, the director shall make inquiries,
inspections and investigations that the director considers reasonable and
appropriate. When an employee or representative of the employee has complained
in writing of an alleged violation and no resulting citation is issued to the
employer, the director shall furnish to the employee or representative of the
employee, upon written request, a statement of reasons for the decision.
(4) The director
shall establish procedures for keeping confidential the identity of any
employee who requests protection in writing. When a request has been made,
neither a written complaint from an employee, or representative of the
employee, nor a memorandum containing the identity of a complainant may be
disclosed under ORS 192.311 to 192.478.
(5) It is an
unlawful employment practice for any person to bar or discharge from employment
or otherwise discriminate against any employee or prospective employee because
the employee or prospective employee has:
(a) Opposed any
practice forbidden by ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to
654.780;
(b) Made any
complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or
related to ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780,
or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding;
(c) Exercised on
behalf of the employee, prospective employee or others any right afforded by
ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780;
(d) In good faith
reported an assault or other incident of workplace violence that occurred on
the premises of a health care employer as defined in ORS 654.412 or in the home
of a patient receiving home health care services; or
(e) With no
reasonable alternative and in good faith, refused to expose the employee or
prospective employee to serious injury or death arising from a hazardous
condition at a place of employment.
(6)(a) Any
employee or prospective employee alleging to have been barred or discharged
from employment or otherwise discriminated against in compensation, or in
terms, conditions or privileges of employment, in violation of subsection (5)
of this section may, within one year after the employee or prospective employee
has reasonable cause to believe that the violation has occurred, file a
complaint with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries alleging
discrimination under the provisions of ORS 659A.820. Upon receipt of the
complaint the commissioner shall process the complaint under the procedures,
policies and remedies established by ORS chapter 659A and the policies
established by ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780
in the same way and to the same extent that the complaint would be processed if
the complaint involved allegations of unlawful employment practices under ORS
659A.030 (1)(g).
(b) Within 90
days after receipt of a complaint filed under this subsection, the commissioner
shall notify the complainant of the commissioner’s determination.
(c) The affected
employee or prospective employee may bring a civil action in any circuit court
of the State of Oregon against any person alleged to have violated subsection
(5) of this section. The civil action must be commenced within one year after
the employee or prospective employee has reasonable cause to believe a
violation has occurred, unless a complaint has been timely filed under ORS
659A.820.
(d) Subject to
paragraph (e) of this subsection, the commissioner or the circuit court may
order all appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement to the
employee’s former position with back pay.
(e) If the
commissioner or the circuit court finds that a behavioral health employer
discharged an employee in violation of subsection (5) of this section, the
employee shall have the right to be reinstated to the employee’s former
position with back pay.
(7)(a) In any
action brought under subsection (6) of this section, there is a rebuttable
presumption that a violation of subsection (5) of this section has occurred if
a person bars or discharges an employee or prospective employee from employment
or otherwise discriminates against an employee or prospective employee within
60 days after the employee or prospective employee has engaged in any of the
protected activities described in subsection (5)(a) to (e) of this section. The
person may rebut the presumption that a violation of subsection (5) of this
section has occurred by a demonstration of a preponderance of the evidence.
(b) If a person
bars or discharges an employee or prospective employee from employment or
otherwise discriminates against the employee or prospective employee more than
60 days after the employee or prospective employee has engaged in any of the
protected activities described under subsection (5)(a) to (e) of this section,
such action does not create a presumption in favor of or against finding that a
violation of subsection (5) of this section has occurred. Where such action has
occurred more than 60 days after the protected activity, this subsection does
not modify any existing rule of case law relating to the proximity of time
between a protected activity and an adverse employment action. The burden of
proof shall be on the employee or prospective employee to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred.
(8) The director
shall adopt rules necessary for the administration of subsection (5)(e) of this
section that are in accordance with the federal Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
(9) As used in
this section, “behavioral health employer” means:
(a) A residential
treatment facility, as defined in ORS 443.400;
(b) A residential
treatment home, as defined in ORS 443.400;
(c) A secure
residential treatment facility, as described in ORS 443.465, unless the
facility is located on an Oregon State Hospital campus or otherwise operated by
the state;
(d) A secure
residential treatment home, as described in ORS 443.465;
(e) A sobering
facility, as defined in ORS 430.306;
(f) A
detoxification center, as defined in ORS 430.306;
(g) A halfway
house, as defined in ORS 430.306;
(h) A mobile
crisis intervention team, as defined in ORS 430.626; or
(i) An emergency
shelter. [Formerly 654.235; 1973 c.833 §14; 1983 c.275 §1; 1999 c.55 §3; 2001
c.621 §82; 2005 c.198 §1; 2007 c.279 §1; 2019 c.350 §3; 2021 c.293 §1; 2021
c.336 §1; 2023 c.196 §1; 2025 c.125 §2; 2025 c.535 §6; 2025 c.561 §3]
654.065 [Repealed by 1973 c.833 §34
(654.290 enacted in lieu of 654.040, 654.065, 654.070, 654.075 and 654.080)]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
55
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case:
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 415 P.3d 55 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 415 P.3d 55 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 17× “062(5) include those listed under ORS 654.062(2), which allows "any employee *** [to] complain to the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services *** of any violation of law, regulation or standard pertaining to safety and health in the place of employment, *62…”
Mantia v. Hanson, 77 P.3d 1143 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 20× “Plaintiff sought attorney fees on that claim “pursuant to ORS 654.062.” Defendant answered and, inter alia, asserted counterclaims for defamation and intentional interference with business relations.”
Carsner v. Freightliner Corp., 688 P.2d 398 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 26× “Plaintiff alleged in his first claim that the discharge was discriminatory and unlawful under ORS 654.062. His second claim was for “outrageous and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Just. v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (D. Or. 2015).
· cites it 8× “199 and Or.Rev.Stat. § 654.062 2 ; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); and (9) defamation, Plaintiff also alleges Oregon common law claims against Agarwal for IIED, battery, and assault.”
Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc., 246 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2011).
· cites it 10× “043 and a claim for retaliation for filing charges with OSHA under ORS 654.062(5). [3] Plaintiff sought $10,968 in economic damages, $100,000 in noneconomic damages, and $969,000 in punitive damages.”
Holien v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 689 P.2d 1292 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 6× “We also note that ORS 654.062(5) now provides a similar remedy under state law although, admittedly, these provisions were not in effect at the time of the conduct in question.”
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 445 P.3d 281 (Or. 2019).
· cites it 4× “Subsequently, plaintiff initiated this action, asserting, inter alia , that Nike retaliated against him for making safety complaints, ORS 654.062(5), and for whistleblowing, ORS 659A.”
Butler v. State Dep't of Corr., 909 P.2d 163 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 13× “Plaintiff cross-appeals from the order directing a verdict dismissing all claims against defendant Dallas Robinson, from the dismissal of his claim under 42 USC § 1983 , from the judgment in favor of all defendants on his claim under ORS 654.062, from the order excluding the…”
House v. Hicks, 179 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “ORS 654.062(1) encourages employees to report workplace safety concerns to their superiors.”
Vergara v. Patel, 471 P.3d 141 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 7× “Although the plaintiff argued that Olsen controlled, we rejected that case’s applicability, stating that it “does not address a claim under the statute at issue in this case, ORS 654.062.” Id. at 425 . Ultimately, we adhered to Walsh’s singular focus on the adequacy of statutory…”
Crosbie v. Asante, 519 P.3d 551 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 8× “Defendants assign error to the so-called “cat’s paw” jury instruction, which allows the jury to impute a subordinate employee’s bias to the person who made the adverse employment decision if the subordinate some- how caused the decision-maker’s action. Defendants argue that the…”
Anderson v. Evergreen Int'l Airlines, Inc., 886 P.2d 1068 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “*735 Thus, defendant’s position reduces, finally, to the proposition that plaintiff has an adequate and, thus, exclusive statutory remedy under the “whistleblower” protections of the Oregon Safe Employment Act (OSEA), ORS 654.062(5). That subsection provides: “(a) It is an…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(1) — 2 cases
House v. Hicks, 179 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“ORS 654.062(1) encourages employees to report workplace safety concerns to their superiors.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(2) — 1 case
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 415 P.3d 55 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“062(5) include those listed under ORS 654.062(2), which allows "any employee *** [to] complain to the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services *** of any violation of law, regulation or standard pertaining to safety and health in the place of employment, *62…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(4) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(5) — 28 cases
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 415 P.3d 55 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“062(5) include those listed under ORS 654.062(2), which allows "any employee *** [to] complain to the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services *** of any violation of law, regulation or standard pertaining to safety and health in the place of employment, *62…”
Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc., 246 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2011).
“043 and a claim for retaliation for filing charges with OSHA under ORS 654.062(5). [3] Plaintiff sought $10,968 in economic damages, $100,000 in noneconomic damages, and $969,000 in punitive damages.”
Holien v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 689 P.2d 1292 (Or. 1984).
“We also note that ORS 654.062(5) now provides a similar remedy under state law although, admittedly, these provisions were not in effect at the time of the conduct in question.”
Carsner v. Freightliner Corp., 688 P.2d 398 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Plaintiff alleged in his first claim that the discharge was discriminatory and unlawful under ORS 654.062. His second claim was for “outrageous and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 445 P.3d 281 (Or. 2019).
“Subsequently, plaintiff initiated this action, asserting, inter alia , that Nike retaliated against him for making safety complaints, ORS 654.062(5), and for whistleblowing, ORS 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(5)(a) — 17 cases
Butler v. State Dep't of Corr., 909 P.2d 163 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“Plaintiff cross-appeals from the order directing a verdict dismissing all claims against defendant Dallas Robinson, from the dismissal of his claim under 42 USC § 1983 , from the judgment in favor of all defendants on his claim under ORS 654.062, from the order excluding the…”
Mantia v. Hanson, 77 P.3d 1143 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Plaintiff sought attorney fees on that claim “pursuant to ORS 654.062.” Defendant answered and, inter alia, asserted counterclaims for defamation and intentional interference with business relations.”
Anderson v. Evergreen Int'l Airlines, Inc., 886 P.2d 1068 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“*735 Thus, defendant’s position reduces, finally, to the proposition that plaintiff has an adequate and, thus, exclusive statutory remedy under the “whistleblower” protections of the Oregon Safe Employment Act (OSEA), ORS 654.062(5). That subsection provides: “(a) It is an…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(5)(b) — 7 cases
Mantia v. Hanson, 77 P.3d 1143 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Plaintiff sought attorney fees on that claim “pursuant to ORS 654.062.” Defendant answered and, inter alia, asserted counterclaims for defamation and intentional interference with business relations.”
Carsner v. Freightliner Corp., 688 P.2d 398 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Plaintiff alleged in his first claim that the discharge was discriminatory and unlawful under ORS 654.062. His second claim was for “outrageous and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(5)(c) — 2 cases
Carsner v. Freightliner Corp., 688 P.2d 398 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Plaintiff alleged in his first claim that the discharge was discriminatory and unlawful under ORS 654.062. His second claim was for “outrageous and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(6) — 1 case
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 415 P.3d 55 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“062(5) include those listed under ORS 654.062(2), which allows "any employee *** [to] complain to the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services *** of any violation of law, regulation or standard pertaining to safety and health in the place of employment, *62…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(6)(a) — 1 case
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 445 P.3d 281 (Or. 2019).
“Subsequently, plaintiff initiated this action, asserting, inter alia , that Nike retaliated against him for making safety complaints, ORS 654.062(5), and for whistleblowing, ORS 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(6)(c) — 3 cases
Just. v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (D. Or. 2015).
“199 and Or.Rev.Stat. § 654.062 2 ; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); and (9) defamation, Plaintiff also alleges Oregon common law claims against Agarwal for IIED, battery, and assault.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.062(6)(d) — 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.