654.750
Definitions for ORS 654.750 to 654.780. As used in this section and ORS 654.760, 654.770 and
654.780, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) “Employee”
means any individual, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to
furnish services for a remuneration, financial or otherwise, subject to the
direction and control of an employer.
(2) “Employer”
means any person engaged in agriculture who engages one or more employees.
(3) “Hazardous
chemical” means any chemical which is a physical or health hazard.
(4) “Health
hazard” means a chemical for which there is statistically significant evidence,
based on at least one study conducted in accordance with established scientific
principles, that acute or chronic health effects may occur in exposed
employees. The term “health hazard” includes chemicals which are carcinogenic,
toxic or highly toxic agents, reproductive toxins, irritants, corrosives,
sensitizers, hepatotoxins, nephrotoxins, neurotoxins, agents which act on the
hematopoietic system, and agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes or mucous
membranes.
(5) “Physical
hazard” means a chemical for which there is scientifically valid evidence that
it is a combustible liquid, a compressed gas, explosive, flammable, an organic
peroxide, an oxidizer, pyrophoric, unstable or water-reactive compound. [1987
c.832 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Shockey v. City of Portland, 837 P.2d 505 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 2× “295, ORS 654.750 to 654.780, and ORS 654.991, is to "assure as far as possible safe and healthful working conditions for every working man and woman in Oregon.”
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 445 P.3d 281 (Or. 2019).
“423, ORS 654.750 to 654.780, and ORS 654.991, provides that the Bureau of Labor and Industries shall process a complaint alleging retaliation "under the procedures, policies and remedies established by ORS chapter 659A and * * * in the same way and to the same extent that the…”
Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 218 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“423, ORS 654.750 to 654.780, and ORS 654.991. 4 Major life activities include employment.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Moore Excavation, Inc., 307 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“423, ORS 654.750 to 654.780, and ORS 654.991. For ease of reading, we use the term employee “exposure” where possible throughout this opinion; however, the same concept is encompassed by terms such as employee “endangerment,” “access,” and others quoted herein in connection with…”
Alcutt v. Adams Fam. Food Servs., Inc., 311 P.3d 959 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“423, ORS 654.750 to 654.780, and ORS 654.991. Those statutes provide, respectively, that “[o]ccupational diseases shall be subject to all of the same limitations and exclusions as accidental injuries under ORS 656.”
Moe v. Eugene Zurbrugg Constr. Co., 123 P.3d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“295, ORS 654.750 - 654.780; ORS 654.991. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defendants had violated the ELL by permitting the installation of the lanes before the overhead work had been completed, failing to cover the trenches or to require that another employee be…”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Tom O'Brien Constr. Co., 986 P.2d 1171 (Or. 1999).
“Because the court concluded that the evidentiary issue was dispositive, it did not rule on OR-OSHA’s second assignment of error, which involved the propriety of what is known in cases decided under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 USC §§ 651-678 (OSHA), as the…”
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.