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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.040 (2026)

Discrimination against worker applying for or inquiring about workers’ compensation benefits prohibited

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

      659A.040 Discrimination against worker applying for or inquiring about workers’ compensation benefits prohibited. It is an unlawful employment practice for any person acting on behalf of an employer to discriminate against a worker with respect to hire or tenure or any term or condition of employment because the worker has:

      (1) Applied for or inquired about benefits under ORS chapter 656;

      (2) Invoked or utilized the procedures provided for in ORS chapter 656; or

      (3) Given testimony under the provisions of ORS chapter 656. [2001 c.621 §32; 2022 c.6 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Anderson v. Hibu, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (D. Or. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anderson v. Hibu, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (D. Or. 2014). · cites it 30× “Plaintiff and defendant move for summary judgment as to both claims.”
Davis v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist., 45 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (D. Or. 2014). · cites it 21× “§ 659A.040; (3) failed to reemploy her in a suitable position, in violation of O.”
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011). · cites it 6× “3d 1117 (2004) (declining to apply McDonnell Douglas framework to a claim brought under Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.040); Ryan v. Patterson Dental Supply, Inc.”
Rinallo v. CAPSA Solutions, LLC, 222 F. Supp. 3d 927 (D. Or. 2016). · cites it 7× “” *929 On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction in which she alleges she was wrongfully terminated by Defendant “for resisting sexual harassment in violation of common law and ORS 659A.”
Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 218 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× ““ ‘Invoke,’ as used in ORS 659A.040, includes, but is not limited to, a worker’s reporting of an on-the-job injury or a perception by the employer that the worker has been injured on the job or will report an injury.”
Williams v. Freightliner, LLC, 100 P.3d 1117 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “” Defendant states that the “parties appear to agree” that if summary judgment was inappropriate on plaintiffs first claim under ORS 659A.040, it also was inappropriate with respect to her claim for reinstatement under ORS 659A.”
Arnold v. Pfizer, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Or. 2013). · cites it 4× “; retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim, in violation of ORS 659A.040; violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“the FMLA”), 29 U.”
Schoen v. Freightliner LLC, 199 P.3d 332 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Defendant contends that those statutes provide the exclusive remedy for claims arising from a plaintiffs status as an injured worker and, thus, that the jury could not consider that status with respect to the IIED claim in this case. That is incorrect.”
Duke v. F.M.K. Constr. Servs., Inc., 739 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (D. Or. 2010). · cites it 8× “1 Plaintiff alleges employment discrimination under ORS 659A.040 and ORS 659A.030 against all defendants and interference with employment relationship against defendants Horizon.”
Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc., 246 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2011). · cites it 2× “062(5)), retaliating against him for filing a workers' compensation claim (ORS 659A.040), and wrongful termination. The jury decided against plaintiff on his claims for workers' compensation retaliation and for wrongful discharge.”
Kirkwood v. W. Hyway Oil Co., 129 P.3d 726 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff brought an employment discrimination claim against defendant, his employer, alleging that defendant violated ORS 659A.040(1) by terminating his employment in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.”
Reames v. AB Car Rental Servs., Inc., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (D. Or. 2012). · cites it 3× “The claims in McDuffy were similar to this case: workers’ compensation discrimination under ORS 659A.040 and two other discrimination claims under ORS chapter 659A.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.040(1) — 8 cases
Anderson v. Hibu, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (D. Or. 2014). “Plaintiff and defendant move for summary judgment as to both claims.”
Williams v. Freightliner, LLC, 100 P.3d 1117 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “” Defendant states that the “parties appear to agree” that if summary judgment was inappropriate on plaintiffs first claim under ORS 659A.040, it also was inappropriate with respect to her claim for reinstatement under ORS 659A.”
Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 218 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). ““ ‘Invoke,’ as used in ORS 659A.040, includes, but is not limited to, a worker’s reporting of an on-the-job injury or a perception by the employer that the worker has been injured on the job or will report an injury.”
Kirkwood v. W. Hyway Oil Co., 129 P.3d 726 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Plaintiff brought an employment discrimination claim against defendant, his employer, alleging that defendant violated ORS 659A.040(1) by terminating his employment in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.”
Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (D. Or. 2011).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.040(l) — 1 case
Hoover v. Indus. Scrap Corp., 527 P.3d 1076 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
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.