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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.805 (2026)

Blacklisting and blackmailing prohibited

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

      659.805 Blacklisting and blackmailing prohibited. (1) No corporation, company or individual shall blacklist or publish, or cause to be blacklisted or published, any employee, mechanic or laborer discharged by such corporation, company or individual, with intent and for the purpose of preventing such employee, mechanic or laborer from engaging in or securing similar or other employment from any other corporation, company or individual.

      (2) No officer or agent of any corporation or any other person shall, in any manner, conspire or contrive by correspondence or otherwise to prevent an employee discharged by such corporation or such person from securing employment. [Formerly 659.230]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Livingston v. Metro. Pediatrics, LLC, 227 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Livingston v. Metro. Pediatrics, LLC, 227 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “230 (whistleblowing), 1 and blacklisting, ORS 659.805. 2 This is an interlocutory appeal of an order denying defendants’ motion to abate plaintiffs claims and compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in plaintiffs employment agreement.”
Lucas v. Lake Cnty., 289 P.3d 320 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “Then, on April 27, while the federal litigation was still pending and before the federal court ruled on the summary judgment motion, plaintiff filed this action in state court alleging claims for blacklisting, ORS 659.805, 2 *45 and common-law wrongful discharge.”
Larmanger v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Or. 2012). “065 (subordination of perjury); ORS 659.805 (blacklisting); and ORS 163.700; ORS 164.”
Krisor v. Lake Cnty. Fair Bd., 302 P.3d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “The same day that the defendant terminated the plaintiff, the defendant allegedly “blacklisted” him, contrary to ORS 659.805, by “falsely report [ing] to the Department of State Police of the State of Oregon that plaintiff had been caught cheating on an examination for…”
Mauze v. GE Vernova Inc. (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff’s Blacklisting Claim Plaintiff’s next claim arises under ORS § 659.805, which provides that businesses may not “blacklist or publish” an employee they discharged “with intent and for the purpose of preventing such employee .”
Lincoln v. Sweet Home Fire & Ambulance Dist. (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 3× “800 or ORS 659.805. ORS 659.800 states that: (1) No person shall, by force, threats, or intimidation, prevent, or endeavor to prevent, any person employed by another from continuing or performing work, or from accepting any new work or employment.”
Winslow v. Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. (D. Or. 2025). “1 Winslow originally also asserted a claim of “blacklisting” against all Defendants, alleging that they violated Oregon Revised Statutes § 659.805. In his motion to dismiss, Quitmeyer argued among other things that blacklisting does not provide a private right of action, 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.