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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.103 (2026)

Policy

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

      659A.103 Policy. (1) It is declared to be the public policy of Oregon to guarantee individuals the fullest possible participation in the social and economic life of the state, to engage in remunerative employment, to use and enjoy places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, to participate in and receive the benefits of the services, programs and activities of state government and to secure housing accommodations of their choice, without discrimination on the basis of disability.

      (2) The guarantees expressed in subsection (1) of this section are hereby declared to be the policy of the State of Oregon to protect, and ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 shall be construed to effectuate such policy. [Formerly 659.405; 2003 c.254 §2; 2007 c.70 §290; 2009 c.508 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A., 441 P.3d 699 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A., 441 P.3d 699 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “139, Oregon courts must construe ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145"to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] of 1990, as amended by the federal ADA Amendments of 2008 and as otherwise amended.”
Arnold v. Pfizer, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Or. 2013). · cites it 3× “040 and ORS 659A.103). Claims under the FMLA may be brought within two or three years of the date of violation, depending on whether the violation was willful.”
Evans v. Multnomah Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 57 P.3d 211 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “139, the “lockstep” statute requiring consistency with the federal ADA; that Toyota embodies a policy that is contrary to the expansive one contained in ORS 659A.103, on which Anglin depended; and that therefore, in order to conform to federal law, we, too, must adopt a more…”
A. K. F. v. Burdette, 484 P.3d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “139(1) (“ORS 659A.103 to 659A.144 shall be construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the federal ADA Amendments Act of 2008 and as otherwise amended.”
Davis v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist., 45 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (D. Or. 2014). “§ 659A.103 et seq.; (5) discriminated and retaliated against her because of her race, in violation of O.”
Johnson v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 415 P.3d 1071 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “145 shall be construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the federal ADA Amendments Act of 2008 and as otherwise amended.”
Gahr v. Marion Cnty. (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 5× “Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and ORS 659A.103 Plaintiff alleges that Marion County violated the ADA and ORS 659A.”
Walker v. Shangri-La Corp. (D. Or. 2022). · cites it 4× “, and Oregon state law, ORS § 659A.103 et seq., OAR 839-006-0206; and claims for disability discrimination under the ADA, 42 U.”
Getman v. Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. (D. Or. 2022). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to a “lockstep” statute, “Oregon courts must construe ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 ‘to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the .”
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff’s First Claim In her First Claim, Plaintiff alleges violations of Oregon employment discrimination law, ORS § 659A.103 et seq., under theories of: (1) discrimination based on actual disability; (2) failure to accommodate; (3) disparate treatment; and (4) retaliation.”
McCann v. City of Eugene, 833 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Or. 2011). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff asserts defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and ORS § 659A.103 et seq. by requiring the treadmill test, by giving her more burdensome work, and by giving her an unfavorable shift assignment.”
Stamper v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 97 P.3d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “See ORS 659A.103(1) (“It is declared to be the public policy of Oregon to guarantee disabled persons the fullest possible participation in the social and economic fife of the state [and] *300 to engage in remunerative employment * * * without discrimination.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.103(1) — 1 case
Stamper v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 97 P.3d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “See ORS 659A.103(1) (“It is declared to be the public policy of Oregon to guarantee disabled persons the fullest possible participation in the social and economic fife of the state [and] *300 to engage in remunerative employment * * * without discrimination.”
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.