Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 658.453 (2026)

Civil penalty; disposition of funds; civil action by worker

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      658.453 Civil penalty; disposition of funds; civil action by worker. (1) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries may assess a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation by:

      (a) A labor contractor who, without the license required by ORS 658.405 to 658.511, recruits, solicits, supplies or employs a worker.

      (b) A labor contractor who fails to comply with ORS 658.415 (16).

      (c) A labor contractor who fails to comply with ORS 658.440 (1), (2)(c) or (3).

      (d) Any person who violates ORS 658.452.

      (e) A labor contractor who fails to comply with ORS 658.417 (1).

      (f) Any person who uses an unlicensed labor contractor without complying with ORS 658.437.

      (2) Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed as provided in ORS 183.745.

      (3) All penalties recovered under this section shall be paid into the State Treasury and credited to the Agricultural Worker Housing Development Account of the Oregon Housing Fund.

      (4) After filing a complaint with the commissioner, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, a worker has a right of action against a labor contractor who violates ORS 658.417 (1) or (2), 658.440 or 658.452 without exhausting any alternative administrative remedies. The action may not be commenced later than two years after the date of the violation giving rise to the right of action. The amount of damages recoverable for each violation under this subsection is actual damages or $1,000, whichever amount is greater. In any such action the court may award to the prevailing party, in addition to costs and disbursements, reasonable attorney fees at trial and appeal. [1979 c.883 §3; 1981 c.606 §5; 1981 c.897 §94; 1983 c.654 §7; 1989 c.164 §5; 1989 c.706 §21; 1991 c.734 §61; 1991 c.907 §3; 2001 c.310 §5; 2005 c.340 §5; 2007 c.160 §5; 2013 c.584 §20; 2017 c.676 §9; 2021 c.525 §26]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Mayfly Grp., Inc. v. Ruiz, 144 P.3d 1025 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mayfly Grp., Inc. v. Ruiz, 144 P.3d 1025 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “In particular, under ORS 658.453(1), the commissioner “may assess a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation” on “a farm labor contractor who, without the license required by ORS 658.”
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 286 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2012). “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 658.453 (4). Unlike RCW 19.”
Santiago v. Farm West Labor Contracting Co. (D. Or. 2023). · cites it 13× “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 658.453 (4). Plaintiffs argue that “filing a complaint with the commissioner” merely requires notifying the commissioner of their Complaint.”
Nw. Reforestation Contractors Ass'n v. Summitt Forests, Inc., 922 P.2d 1240 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “475 recognizes a basis for damages that is distinct from both ORS 658.453(4), which gives a worker a direct claim against the farm labor contractor *153 for damages that Eire the result of the violation of certain statutes, if the worker first files with the Bureau of Labor and…”
Matteson v. LeafFilter North, LLC (A183261), 350 Or. App. 736 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “That statute provides that “[a]ny person who knowingly uses the services of an unlicensed labor contrac- tor shall be personally, jointly and severally liable with the person acting as a labor contractor to the same extent and in the same manner as provided in ORS 658.453(4).”…”
Santiago v. Farm West Labor Contracting Co. (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 4× “” ORS § 658.453. This Court maintains its earlier holding that Plaintiffs complied with that requirement by sending a letter to the BOLI Commissioner in November of 2022.”
Perez v. Coast to Coast Reforestation Corp., 785 P.2d 365 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “The act comprehensively regulates contracts of the kind in question. ORS 658.440(1) (f). Its purposes clearly include the protection of workers and the assurance of their compensation.”
Santiago (D. Or. 2026). · cites it 2× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 658.453 (4). Plaintiffs request $39,800.”
Sergio Mena; Adriana Ramirez; Francisco Solorzano; Abraham Lopez; & Armando Calixto v. Portland Drywall Sys. Enter., Inc.; Spanos Corp. d/b/a A.G. Spanos Companies; South Cooper Apts., LLC d/b/a A.G. Spanos Companies & Arazo; & Abelardo Chavez (D. Or. 2026). “The F&R identifies two events that substantially preceded plaintiffs’ motion and concludes that those events provided the necessary factual basis for plaintiffs to assert their OCRA claims more than a year earlier: (1) pre-litigation demand letters sent in 2022 which assert that…”
Matteson v. LeafFilter North, LLC (A183261), 350 Or. App. 736 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “That statute provides that “[a]ny person who knowingly uses the services of an unlicensed labor contrac- tor shall be personally, jointly and severally liable with the person acting as a labor contractor to the same extent and in the same manner as provided in ORS 658.453(4).”…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 658.453(1): 1 case
Mayfly Grp., Inc. v. Ruiz, 144 P.3d 1025 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “In particular, under ORS 658.453(1), the commissioner “may assess a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation” on “a farm labor contractor who, without the license required by ORS 658.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 658.453(4): 6 cases
Mayfly Grp., Inc. v. Ruiz, 144 P.3d 1025 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “In particular, under ORS 658.453(1), the commissioner “may assess a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation” on “a farm labor contractor who, without the license required by ORS 658.”
Nw. Reforestation Contractors Ass'n v. Summitt Forests, Inc., 922 P.2d 1240 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “475 recognizes a basis for damages that is distinct from both ORS 658.453(4), which gives a worker a direct claim against the farm labor contractor *153 for damages that Eire the result of the violation of certain statutes, if the worker first files with the Bureau of Labor and…”
Santiago v. Farm West Labor Contracting Co. (D. Or. 2023). “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 658.453 (4). Plaintiffs argue that “filing a complaint with the commissioner” merely requires notifying the commissioner of their Complaint.”
Matteson v. LeafFilter North, LLC (A183261), 350 Or. App. 736 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “That statute provides that “[a]ny person who knowingly uses the services of an unlicensed labor contrac- tor shall be personally, jointly and severally liable with the person acting as a labor contractor to the same extent and in the same manner as provided in ORS 658.453(4).”…”
Perez v. Coast to Coast Reforestation Corp., 785 P.2d 365 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “The act comprehensively regulates contracts of the kind in question. ORS 658.440(1) (f). Its purposes clearly include the protection of workers and the assurance of their compensation.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 658.453(l)(f): 1 case
Mayfly Grp., Inc. v. Ruiz, 144 P.3d 1025 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “In particular, under ORS 658.453(1), the commissioner “may assess a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation” on “a farm labor contractor who, without the license required by ORS 658.”
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.