659A.001
Definitions. As
used in this chapter:
(1) “Bureau”
means the Bureau of Labor and Industries.
(2) “Commissioner”
means the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries.
(3) “Employee”
does not include any individual employed by the individual’s parents, spouse or
child or in the domestic service of any person.
(4)(a) “Employer”
means any person who in this state, directly or through an agent, engages or
uses the personal service of one or more employees, reserving the right to
control the means by which such service is or will be performed.
(b) For the
purposes of employee protections described in ORS 659A.350, “employer” means
any person who, in this state, is in an employment relationship with an intern
as described in ORS 659A.350.
(5) “Employment
agency” includes any person undertaking to procure employees or opportunities
to work.
(6)(a) “Familial
status” means the relationship between one or more individuals who have not
attained 18 years of age and who are domiciled with:
(A) A parent or
another person having legal custody of the individual; or
(B) The designee
of the parent or other person having such custody, with the written permission
of the parent or other person.
(b) “Familial
status” includes any individual, regardless of age or domicile, who is pregnant
or is in the process of securing legal custody of an individual who has not
attained 18 years of age.
(7) “Labor
organization” includes any organization which is constituted for the purpose,
in whole or in part, of collective bargaining or in dealing with employers
concerning grievances, terms or conditions of employment or of other mutual aid
or protection in connection with employees.
(8) “National
origin” includes ancestry.
(9) “Person”
includes:
(a) One or more
individuals, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, limited liability
companies, joint stock companies, corporations, legal representatives,
trustees, trustees in bankruptcy or receivers.
(b) A public body
as defined in ORS 30.260.
(c) For purposes
of ORS 659A.145 and 659A.421 and the application of any federal housing law, a
fiduciary, mutual company, trust or unincorporated organization.
(10) “Protective
hairstyle” means a hairstyle, hair color or manner of wearing hair that
includes, but is not limited to, braids, regardless of whether the braids are
created with extensions or styled with adornments, locs and twists.
(11) “Race”
includes physical characteristics that are historically associated with race,
including but not limited to natural hair, hair texture, hair type and
protective hairstyles.
(12) “Respondent”
means any person against whom a complaint or charge of an unlawful practice is
filed with the commissioner or whose name has been added to such complaint or
charge pursuant to ORS 659A.835.
(13) “Unlawful
employment practice” means a practice specifically denominated as an unlawful
employment practice in this chapter. “Unlawful employment practice” includes a
practice that is specifically denominated in another statute of this state as
an unlawful employment practice and that is specifically made subject to
enforcement under this chapter.
(14) “Unlawful
practice” means any unlawful employment practice or any other practice
specifically denominated as an unlawful practice in this chapter. “Unlawful
practice” includes a practice that is specifically denominated in another
statute of this state as an unlawful practice and that is specifically made
subject to enforcement under this chapter, or a practice that violates a rule
adopted by the commissioner for the enforcement of the provisions of this
chapter. [2001 c.621 §1; 2008 c.36 §4; 2013 c.379 §3; 2021 c.239 §1]
PURPOSE AND POLICY
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
McLaughlin v. Wilson, 449 P.3d 492 (Or. 2019).
McLaughlin v. Wilson, 449 P.3d 492 (Or. 2019).
· cites it 5× “) The term “person” is one that the legis- lature defines, along with others “[a]s used in * * * chapter” 659A, in ORS 659A.001: “(9) ‘Person’ includes: “(a) One or more individuals, partnerships, associa- tions, labor organizations, limited liability companies, joint stock…”
Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 490 P.3d 166 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Anyone qual- ifying as a “person” under ORS 659A.001(9) may be an aider or abettor of an unlawful employment practice in a way that subjects them to liability under ORS 659A.”
Burley v. Clackamas Cnty., 446 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Throughout ORS chapter 659A, the legislature routinely has announced when it intends for a particular provision, or set of provisions, to apply to a limited category of those persons and entities that fall within the broad definition of employer in ORS 659A.001. 1 The…”
McManus v. Auchincloss, 353 P.3d 17 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 8× “230 is subject to the definition of “employee” found in ORS 659A.001(1), 6 which excludes domestic service workers, and we should not consider the legislative history cited by plaintiff because that text is clear.”
McClusky v. City of North Bend, 481 P.3d 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “” Held: ORS 659A.001(4)(a) defines “employer” as one who reserves “the right to control” the means by which an employee performs a service.”
Multnomah Cnty. Sheriff's Off. v. Edwards, 399 P.3d 969 (Or. 2017).
“” ORS 659A.001(12). ORS 408.230(6) is just such a statute that specifically denominates violation of the veterans’ preference law as an unlawful practice.”
Harrington v. Airbnb, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Or. 2018).
· cites it 2× “After commencing this lawsuit, Plaintiff Patricia Harrington passed away. Plaintiffs Carlotta Franklin and Ebony Price continue to prosecute this action.”
Dinicola v. State, 382 P.3d 547 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “The definitions in ORS 659A.001 apply to all of ORS chapter 659A.”
Yeager v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 96 P.3d 862 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“ORS 659A.001(12) defines “unlawful practice” for purposes of OFLA to include “a practice that violates a rule adopted by the commissioner for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter.”
H. K. v. Spine Surgery Ctr. of Eugene, 470 P.3d 403 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“See ORS 659A.001(4)(a) (defining “employer” for purposes of ORS chapter 659 as “any person who in this state, directly or through an agent, engages or uses the personal service of one or more employ- ees, reserving the right to control the means by which such Cite as 305 Or App…”
Allison v. Dolich, 518 P.3d 591 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Catholic Health Initiatives, 311 Or App 70, 74 , 490 P3d 166 (2021) (noting the “broad definition” of “any person” and holding that “[a]nyone qualifying as a ‘person’ under ORS 659A.001(9) may be an aider or abettor of an 2 We note, as an aside, that although ORS 63.”
Wiederhold v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Or. 2012).
· cites it 2× “(“ADA”), and Oregon’s corresponding Discrimination Against Disabled Persons in Employment Act, ORS § 659A.001 et seq. (the “Oregon Act”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.001(1) — 1 case
McManus v. Auchincloss, 353 P.3d 17 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“230 is subject to the definition of “employee” found in ORS 659A.001(1), 6 which excludes domestic service workers, and we should not consider the legislative history cited by plaintiff because that text is clear.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.001(12) — 6 cases
Multnomah Cnty. Sheriff's Off. v. Edwards, 399 P.3d 969 (Or. 2017).
“” ORS 659A.001(12). ORS 408.230(6) is just such a statute that specifically denominates violation of the veterans’ preference law as an unlawful practice.”
Yeager v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 96 P.3d 862 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“ORS 659A.001(12) defines “unlawful practice” for purposes of OFLA to include “a practice that violates a rule adopted by the commissioner for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.001(14) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.001(3) — 1 case
McManus v. Auchincloss, 353 P.3d 17 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“230 is subject to the definition of “employee” found in ORS 659A.001(1), 6 which excludes domestic service workers, and we should not consider the legislative history cited by plaintiff because that text is clear.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.001(4) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.001(4)(a) — 5 cases
McClusky v. City of North Bend, 481 P.3d 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“” Held: ORS 659A.001(4)(a) defines “employer” as one who reserves “the right to control” the means by which an employee performs a service.”
Burley v. Clackamas Cnty., 446 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Throughout ORS chapter 659A, the legislature routinely has announced when it intends for a particular provision, or set of provisions, to apply to a limited category of those persons and entities that fall within the broad definition of employer in ORS 659A.001. 1 The…”
H. K. v. Spine Surgery Ctr. of Eugene, 470 P.3d 403 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“See ORS 659A.001(4)(a) (defining “employer” for purposes of ORS chapter 659 as “any person who in this state, directly or through an agent, engages or uses the personal service of one or more employ- ees, reserving the right to control the means by which such Cite as 305 Or App…”
Dinicola v. State, 382 P.3d 547 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“The definitions in ORS 659A.001 apply to all of ORS chapter 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.001(5) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.001(9) — 7 cases
Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 490 P.3d 166 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Anyone qual- ifying as a “person” under ORS 659A.001(9) may be an aider or abettor of an unlawful employment practice in a way that subjects them to liability under ORS 659A.”
McLaughlin v. Wilson, 449 P.3d 492 (Or. 2019).
“) The term “person” is one that the legis- lature defines, along with others “[a]s used in * * * chapter” 659A, in ORS 659A.001: “(9) ‘Person’ includes: “(a) One or more individuals, partnerships, associa- tions, labor organizations, limited liability companies, joint stock…”
Harrington v. Airbnb, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Or. 2018).
“After commencing this lawsuit, Plaintiff Patricia Harrington passed away. Plaintiffs Carlotta Franklin and Ebony Price continue to prosecute this action.”
Allison v. Dolich, 518 P.3d 591 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Catholic Health Initiatives, 311 Or App 70, 74 , 490 P3d 166 (2021) (noting the “broad definition” of “any person” and holding that “[a]nyone qualifying as a ‘person’ under ORS 659A.001(9) may be an aider or abettor of an 2 We note, as an aside, that although ORS 63.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.001(9)(a) — 4 cases
McLaughlin v. Wilson, 449 P.3d 492 (Or. 2019).
“) The term “person” is one that the legis- lature defines, along with others “[a]s used in * * * chapter” 659A, in ORS 659A.001: “(9) ‘Person’ includes: “(a) One or more individuals, partnerships, associa- tions, labor organizations, limited liability companies, joint stock…”
Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 490 P.3d 166 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Anyone qual- ifying as a “person” under ORS 659A.001(9) may be an aider or abettor of an unlawful employment practice in a way that subjects them to liability under ORS 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.001(9)(b) — 1 case
Burley v. Clackamas Cnty., 446 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Throughout ORS chapter 659A, the legislature routinely has announced when it intends for a particular provision, or set of provisions, to apply to a limited category of those persons and entities that fall within the broad definition of employer in ORS 659A.001. 1 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.