Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.850 (2026)

Discrimination in education prohibited; rules

✓ current as of May 2026

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

659.850 Discrimination in education prohibited; rules. (1) As used in this section:

(a)(A) “Discrimination” means any act that unreasonably differentiates treatment, intended or unintended, or any act that is fair in form but discriminatory in operation, either of which is based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status, age or disability.

(B) “Discrimination” does not include enforcement of an otherwise valid dress code or policy, as long as the code or policy:

(i) Provides, on a case-by-case basis, for reasonable accommodation of an individual based on the health and safety needs of the individual; and

(ii) Does not have a disproportionate adverse impact on members of a protected class to a greater extent than the policy impacts persons generally.

(b) “Race” includes physical characteristics that are historically associated with race, including but not limited to natural hair, hair texture, hair type and protective hairstyles as defined in ORS 659A.001.

(2) A person may not be subjected to discrimination in any public elementary, secondary or community college education program or service, school or interschool activity or in any higher education program or service, school or interschool activity where the program, service, school or activity is financed in whole or in part by moneys appropriated by the Legislative Assembly.

(3) The State Board of Education and the Higher Education Coordinating Commission shall establish rules necessary to ensure compliance with subsection (2) of this section in the manner required by ORS chapter 183. [Formerly 659.150; 2007 c.100 §29; 2013 c.747 §182; 2013 c.768 §146; 2021 c.239 §3; 2021 c.367 §32]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Powell v. Bunn, 108 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Powell v. Bunn, 108 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 86× “The superintendent declined to proceed further on petitioners' complaint of discrimination on the ground that there was no substantial evidence that the district's policy of permitting the Boy Scouts of America to make presentations to students during school hours constituted…”

Powell v. Bunn, 142 P.3d 1054 (Or. 2006). · cites it 66× “The Powells eventually filed a discrimination complaint against the school district under ORS 659.850 and its implementing rules, OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX to XXX-XXX-XXXX.”

Nakashima v. Oregon State Bd. of Educ., 185 P.3d 429 (Or. 2008). · cites it 43× “This case requires us to decide the legal standard that applies to determine when a practice or policy is “fair in form but discriminatory in operation” within the meaning of ORS 659.850, which prohibits religious and other forms of discrimination in state-funded school and…”

Nakashima v. Bd. of Educ., 131 P.3d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 32× “We determined that ORS 659.850 1 required OSAA to attempt to make a reasonable accommodation of the students’ religious needs and that, by failing to consider whether OSAA had fulfilled that obligation, the board committed legal error.”

Montgomery v. Bd. of Educ., 71 P.3d 94 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 15× “Petitioners base their claims on ORS 659.850, 5 the relevant portions of which provide: 6 “(1) As used in this section, ‘discrimination’ means any act that unreasonably differentiates treatment, intended or unintended, or any act that is fair in form but discriminatory in…”

C.O. v. Portland Pub. Schs., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Or. 2005). · cites it 15× “…based on violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and § 504, IDEA and ADA; Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 659.850, 659A.403, and 659A.142; and a common law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Plaintiffs are a child, C.O.,…”

Walter v. Bd. of Educ., 457 P.3d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7× “2 1 OAR 581-021-0047 (2012) provided: “(1) * * * * * “(2) To ensure that all public schools are in compliance with ORS 659.850 which prohibits discrimination in public schools, on or after July 1, 2017, the use of any Native American mascot by a public school is prohibited.”

Nakashima v. Bd. of Educ., 138 P.3d 854 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Second, OSAA could be mounting, in effect, a challenge to the constitutionality of ORS 659.850, as we have interpreted it. Again, we do not find such an argument expressly stated in any of OSAA’s briefing on reconsideration.”

Doyle v. City of Medford, 303 P.3d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” We note that ORS 659.850(1) defines discrimination in education to include acts that are “fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.”

Frehoo, Inc. v. BOLI, 510 P.3d 888 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “We express no opinion as to Frehoo’s arguments as to the imposition of joint and severable liability.”

Kerr v. Bradbury, 89 P.3d 1227 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “That statute provides: “(1) Any public elementary or secondary school determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or any community college determined by the Commissioner for Community College Services to be in noncompliance with provisions of ORS 659.850 and this…”

Barrios v. Beaverton Sch. Dist. (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 21× “On December 20, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 659.850 and 659.852 and 42 U.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.850(1) — 9 cases

Powell v. Bunn, 108 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “The superintendent declined to proceed further on petitioners' complaint of discrimination on the ground that there was no substantial evidence that the district's policy of permitting the Boy Scouts of America to make presentations to students during school hours constituted…”

Powell v. Bunn, 142 P.3d 1054 (Or. 2006). “The Powells eventually filed a discrimination complaint against the school district under ORS 659.850 and its implementing rules, OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX to XXX-XXX-XXXX.”

Nakashima v. Oregon State Bd. of Educ., 185 P.3d 429 (Or. 2008). “This case requires us to decide the legal standard that applies to determine when a practice or policy is “fair in form but discriminatory in operation” within the meaning of ORS 659.850, which prohibits religious and other forms of discrimination in state-funded school and…”

Montgomery v. Bd. of Educ., 71 P.3d 94 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “Petitioners base their claims on ORS 659.850, 5 the relevant portions of which provide: 6 “(1) As used in this section, ‘discrimination’ means any act that unreasonably differentiates treatment, intended or unintended, or any act that is fair in form but discriminatory in…”

C.O. v. Portland Pub. Schs., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Or. 2005). “…based on violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and § 504, IDEA and ADA; Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 659.850, 659A.403, and 659A.142; and a common law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Plaintiffs are a child, C.O.,…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.850(1)(a)(A) — 1 case

L.O.K v. Greater Albany Pub. Sch. Dist. 8J (D. Or. 2022).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.850(2) — 9 cases

Nakashima v. Bd. of Educ., 138 P.3d 854 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Second, OSAA could be mounting, in effect, a challenge to the constitutionality of ORS 659.850, as we have interpreted it. Again, we do not find such an argument expressly stated in any of OSAA’s briefing on reconsideration.”

Walter v. Bd. of Educ., 457 P.3d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “2 1 OAR 581-021-0047 (2012) provided: “(1) * * * * * “(2) To ensure that all public schools are in compliance with ORS 659.850 which prohibits discrimination in public schools, on or after July 1, 2017, the use of any Native American mascot by a public school is prohibited.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.850(3) — 3 cases

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.