Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.991

Penalties

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

      654.991 Penalties. (1) Subject to ORS 153.022, any employer who willfully violates any provision of, or any regulation, rule, standard or order promulgated pursuant to, ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780, and that violation is found to have caused or materially contributed to the death of any employee, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both; except that if the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $20,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. For the purposes of this subsection, a violation is willful if it is committed knowingly by an employer or supervisory employee who, having a free will or choice, intentionally or knowingly disobeys or recklessly disregards the requirements of a regulation, rule, standard or order. ORS 161.085 shall apply to terms used in this section.

      (2) Any person who gives advance notice of any inspection to be conducted under ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780, without authority from the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services or the designees of the director, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.

      (3) Whoever knowingly makes a false statement, representation, or certification in any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or required to be maintained pursuant to ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780 shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.

      (4) Punishment under this section does not affect or lessen the civil liability of the offender. [1973 c.833 §38 (enacted in lieu of 654.990); 1977 c.455 §1; 1999 c.1051 §321]

_______________

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: Shockey v. City of Portland
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shockey v. City of Portland (1992) or · cites it 2× “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. (2019) or “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 complaint would be…”
Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc. (2009) orctapp “780, and ORS 654.991. 4 Major life activities include employment.”
Miller v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (1983) or “295, ORS 654.991) and what is popularly referred to as the Employer’s Liability Act (ELA) (ORS 654.”
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc. (1999) or “The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The order of the Workers’ Compensation Board is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.”
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. Moore Excavation, Inc. (2013) orctapp “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 judicial and…”
Alcutt v. Adams Family Food Services, Inc. (2013) orctapp “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.”
Enoch Skirvin & Sons, Inc. v. Accident Prevention Division (1978) orctapp “295 and ORS 654.991. On March 28, 1976, petitioner was engaged in a so-called "gypo” logging operation.”
Moe v. Eugene Zurbrugg Construction Co. (2005) orctapp “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 assigned to prevent the…”
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc. (2013) orctapp “780, and ORS 654.991. ORS 654.086(2) defines a serious violation as one in which there is a “substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a condition which exists, or from one or more practices, means, methods, operations or processes which have…”
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. Tom O'Brien Construction Co. (1999) or “1 OR-OSHA petitioned this court for review, seeking a determination whether the rogue supervisor defense properly applies to proceedings under Oregon’s counterpart to OSHA, the Oregon Safe Employment Act, ORS 654.”
Accident Prevention Division v. Roseburg Forest Products (1991) orctapp “259; ORS 654.991, that affirmed a citation issued to it for violation of OAR 437-40-030(1).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.991(1) — 1 case
Oregon Manufacturers and Commerce v. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division (2022) ord
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.