Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.082 (2026)

Discrimination against person for service in uniformed service prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026

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

659A.082 Discrimination against person for service in uniformed service prohibited. (1) As used in this section:

(a) “Service” means the performance of duty on a voluntary or involuntary basis in a uniformed service that may involve active duty, active duty for training, initial active duty for training, inactive duty for training, full-time duty in the National Guard, funeral honors duty or an examination to determine fitness for service in a uniformed service.

(b) “Uniformed service” means the Armed Forces of the United States, the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard when engaged in active duty for training, inactive duty training or full-time National Guard duty, the commissioned corps of the United States Public Health Service and any other category of persons designated by the President of the United States in time of war or national emergency.

(2) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against a person because of the person’s service in a uniformed service by:

(a) If the employer is a public body, denying a public officer or public employee the status or rights provided by ORS 408.240 to 408.280 and 408.290.

(b) Denying any of the following because a person is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies to perform or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed service:

(A) Initial employment;

(B) Reemployment following a leave from employment taken by reason of service in a uniformed service;

(D) Promotion; or

(E) Any other term, condition or privilege of employment, including but not limited to compensation.

(c) Discharging, expelling, disciplining, threatening or otherwise retaliating against the person for exercising or attempting to exercise the status or rights provided by this section.

(3) An employer does not commit an unlawful employment practice under subsection (2)(b) of this section if the employer acted based on a bona fide occupational requirement reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the employer’s business and the employer’s actions could not be avoided by making a reasonable accommodation of the person’s service in a uniformed service.

(4) Subsection (2)(b) and (c) of this section shall be construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with similar provisions of the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, including the five-year limit on eligibility for reemployment under 38 U.S.C. 4312.

(5) In addition to any exception under federal law, the cumulative period of time for which an employee is absent from a position of employment with an employer for purposes of any of the following types of service in the uniformed service shall be excluded from the calculation of any durational limit on the eligibility for reemployment rights:

(a) Voluntary service overseas; and

(b) Voluntary service within the United States during or in response to an emergency or disaster declared by local, state or federal government. [2009 c.378 §2; 2011 c.18 §1; 2021 c.62 §2]

(Leave of Absence for State Service)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: Bush v. City of Prineville (A165637), 457 P.3d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bush v. City of Prineville (A165637), 457 P.3d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “We write to address only one assignment of error common to all defendants: that the trial court erred by awarding attorney fees for claims other than the claims related to wrongful discrimination under ORS 659A.082. Because we conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that…”

Bush v. City of Prineville, 325 Or. App. 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff’s first claim for relief asserted a count against the city for discrimination against a uniformed service member in violation of ORS 659A.082. The first claim for relief also asserted a count against LGPI for aiding and abetting dis- crimination in violation of ORS…”

Elk Creek Mgmt. Co. v. Gilbert, 303 P.3d 929 (Or. 2013). “174(1) provides that “[a] hospital may not take retaliatory action against a nursing staff because the nursing staff *** files a *** complaint” regarding unsafe care, and ORS 659A.082(2)(c) provides that “[i]t is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate…”

Brooks (D. Or. 2026). · cites it 6× “Discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) and ORS § 659A.082. Amazon moves to dismiss Brooks’ claims for military service discrimination because he failed to allege that his status as a former servicemember was a substantial or…”

Bush v. City of Prineville (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff’s first claim for relief asserted a count against the city for discrimination against a uniformed service member in violation of ORS 659A.082. The first claim for relief also asserted a count against LGPI for aiding and abetting dis- crimination in violation of ORS…”

Sellers v. Jud. Dept., 500 P.3d 760 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “See ORS 659A.082 (dis- crimination against uniformed service workers); ORS 408.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.082(2)(c) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.082(4) — 1 case

Brooks (D. Or. 2026). “Discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) and ORS § 659A.082. Amazon moves to dismiss Brooks’ claims for military service discrimination because he failed to allege that his status as a former servicemember was a substantial or…”

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.