659.852
Retaliation against student prohibited. (1) As used in this section:
(a) “Education
program” means an education program provided by:
(A) A school
district;
(B) A public
charter school;
(C) An education
service district;
(D) A long term
care or treatment facility, as described in ORS 343.961;
(E) The Youth
Corrections Education Program;
(F) The Oregon
School for the Deaf;
(G) An approved
recovery school, as defined in ORS 336.680;
(H) A community
college operated under ORS chapter 341;
(I) A public
university listed in ORS 352.002;
(J) A career
school;
(K) A private
school; or
(L) A private
college or university.
(b) “Retaliation”
means suspension, expulsion, disenrollment, grade reduction, denial of academic
or employment opportunities, exclusion from academic or extracurricular
activities, denial of access to transcripts, threats, harassment or other
adverse action that substantially disadvantages a student in academic,
employment or extracurricular activities.
(2) A student of
an education program may not be subjected to retaliation by an education
program for the reason that the student has in good faith reported information
that the student believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law,
rule or regulation.
(3) A student, or
a parent or guardian of a student under 18 years of age, who alleges a
violation of subsection (2) of this section may bring a civil action under ORS
659A.885. [2015 c.434 §2; 2023 c.513 §19]
Notes of Decisions
Barrios v. Beaverton Sch. Dist., No. 3:24-cv-01872 (D. Or. May 19, 2025).
· cites it 13× “Violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.852 In their original Complaint, Plaintiffs’ alleged that K.”
A.J. v. North Clackamas Sch. Dist., No. 3:20-cv-01322 (D. Or. Apr. 6, 2023).
· cites it 10× “Finally, 1 GRANT Defendant’s motion as to Count IV (ORS § 659.852) and both of Plaintiff's theories for Count V (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (““NIED”)).”
Barrios v. Beaverton Sch. Dist., No. 3:24-cv-01872 (D. Or. Feb. 21, 2025).
· cites it 8× “Violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.852 In the second claim Plaintiffs allege K.”
L.O.K v. Greater Albany Pub. Sch. Dist. 8J, No. 6:20-cv-00529 (D. Or. June 28, 2022).
· cites it 3× “850 against the District; and (5) retaliation for reporting a violation of state or federal law pursuant to ORS 659.852 against the District. First Am.”
Brady v. Portland State Univ., No. 3:18-cv-01251, 2019 WL 4045652 (D. Or. Aug. 23, 2019).
“(“ORS”) § 659.852; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.”
McGowan, No. 3:25-cv-01522 (D. Or. June 17, 2026).
“On these facts, plaintiff brought the present action, asserting ten total claims: six against CCC, two for race discrimination under Title VI, and one each for state retaliation under Oregon Revised Statutes § 659.852, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied contract, and…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.852(1)(b): 2 cases
Barrios v. Beaverton Sch. Dist., No. 3:24-cv-01872 (D. Or. May 19, 2025).
“Violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.852 In their original Complaint, Plaintiffs’ alleged that K.”
Barrios v. Beaverton Sch. Dist., No. 3:24-cv-01872 (D. Or. Feb. 21, 2025).
“Violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.852 In the second claim Plaintiffs allege K.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.852(2): 1 case
A.J. v. North Clackamas Sch. Dist., No. 3:20-cv-01322 (D. Or. Apr. 6, 2023).
“Finally, 1 GRANT Defendant’s motion as to Count IV (ORS § 659.852) and both of Plaintiff's theories for Count V (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (““NIED”)).”
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.