659A.104
Description of disability for purposes of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145. (1) An individual has a disability
for the purposes of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 if the individual meets any one of
the following criteria:
(a) The
individual has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activities of the individual.
(b) The
individual has a record of having a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual. For
the purposes of this paragraph, an individual has a record of having a physical
or mental impairment if the individual has a history of, or has been
misclassified as having, a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities of the individual.
(c) The
individual is regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual. For
the purposes of this paragraph:
(A) An individual
is regarded as having a physical or mental impairment if the individual has
been subjected to an action prohibited under ORS 659A.112 to 659A.139 because
of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not the
impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity of the
individual.
(B) An individual
is not regarded as having a physical or mental impairment if the individual has
an impairment that is minor and that has an actual or expected duration of six
months or less.
(2) Activities
and functions that are considered major life activities for the purpose of
determining if an individual has a disability include but are not limited to:
(a) Caring for
oneself;
(b) Performing
manual tasks;
(c) Seeing;
(d) Hearing;
(e) Eating;
(f) Sleeping;
(g) Walking;
(h) Standing;
(i) Lifting;
(j) Bending;
(k) Speaking;
(L) Breathing;
(m) Learning;
(n) Reading;
(o)
Concentrating;
(p) Thinking;
(q)
Communicating;
(r) Working;
(s) Socializing;
(t) Sitting;
(u) Reaching;
(v) Interacting
with others;
(w) Employment;
(x) Ambulation;
(y)
Transportation;
(z) Operation of
a major bodily function, including but not limited to:
(A) Functions of
the immune system;
(B) Normal cell
growth; and
(C) Digestive,
bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine and
reproductive functions; and
(aa) Ability to
acquire, rent or maintain property.
(3) An individual
is substantially limited in a major life activity if the individual has an
impairment, had an impairment or is perceived as having an impairment that
restricts one or more major life activities of the individual as compared to
most people in the general population. An impairment need not prevent, or
significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life
activity in order to be considered substantially limiting. An impairment that
substantially limits one major life activity of the individual need not limit
other major life activities of the individual. An impairment that is episodic
or in remission is considered to substantially limit a major life activity of
the individual if the impairment would substantially limit a major life
activity of the individual when the impairment is active. Nonetheless, not
every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of this
section.
(4) When
determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity of
an individual, the determination shall be made without regard to the
ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, including:
(a) Medication;
(b) Medical
supplies, equipment or appliances;
(c) Low vision
devices or other devices that magnify, enhance or otherwise augment a visual
image, except that ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses or other similar
lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive
error may be considered when determining whether an impairment substantially
limits a major life activity of an individual;
(d) Prosthetics,
including limbs and devices;
(e) Hearing aids,
cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices;
(f) Mobility
devices;
(g) Oxygen
therapy equipment or supplies;
(h) Assistive
technology;
(i) Reasonable
accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; or
(j) Learned
behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.
(5) Nothing in
subsection (4)(c) of this section authorizes an employer to use qualification
standards, employment tests or other selection criteria based on an individual’s
uncorrected vision unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as
used by the employer, are shown to be job-related for the position in question
and is consistent with business necessity. [2009 c.508 §2; 2013 c.105 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 2016–2026 · leading case:
A. K. F. v. Burdette, 484 P.3d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
A. K. F. v. Burdette, 484 P.3d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 6× “ORS 659A.104(1)(a) is one statute that defines “person with a disability” the same way that ORS 410.”
Huitt v. Optum Health Servs., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1179 (D. Or. 2016).
“Plaintiff alleges in her First Claim that she has a disability as defined by Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.104(1)(a) that substantially limits her ability to perform major life activities, that she was a qualified individual with a disability, that she was able to perform the…”
McClusky v. City of North Bend, 481 P.3d 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“010, but reenacted the same rel- evant text in ORS 659A.104(1)(a). Or Laws 2001, ch 621, § 1.”
Bassett v. Truveta, Inc. (D. Or. 2025).
· cites it 9× “Oregon law also provides that determining “whether an individual has a disability as provided in ORS 659A.104(1) shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under ORS 659A.”
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024).
· cites it 8× “” See ORS § 659A.104.(1)-(2). In her FAC, Plaintiff alleges that she “is a ‘disabled person’ as defined at ORS § 659A.”
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024).
· cites it 8× “” ORS § 659A.104(1)(a). Activities that are considered “major life activities” include 7 Plaintiff also alleges discrimination under Oregon disability law under a theory of “hostile work environment” but does not identify any provision of ORS Chapter 659A that would support that…”
Sanderl v. St. Charles Health Sys., Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
· cites it 8× “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(1)(a)-(b). Examples of “[a]ctivities and functions that are considered major life activities for the purpose of determining if an individual has a disability include” sensory abilities, bodily movement, caring for oneself, and working.”
Mathisen v. Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. (D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 5× “8 Plaintiff’s FAC implies that her disability prevented her from receiving a vaccination, see FAC ¶ 31, but she cites no authority to support the conclusion that the activity of receiving a vaccination is a qualifying “major life activity” within the meaning of ORS 659A.104(1).…”
Hussein (D. Or. 2026).
· cites it 2× “2 (a), (g); ORS § 659A.104. The ADA defines a “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment,” either real or perceived, “that substantially limits one or more major life activities.”
Jackson v. Gill (D. Or. 2020).
“For purposes Accommodations violations, ORS 659A.104(2)(f),” and violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under 42 U.”
Flores v. ODOC (D. Or. 2023).
“§ 659A.104(1)(a). Neither has Flores asserted that he suffered an adverse employment action nor that Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his disability.”
Puccio v. Oregon Cascades West Council of Governments (D. Or. 2025).
“ORS 659A.104, 659A.112. To prevail on her Oregon Family Leave Act claim, Plaintiff must show her employer retaliated or discriminated against her for requesting or invoking leave protected by the Act.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(1) — 3 cases
Bassett v. Truveta, Inc. (D. Or. 2025).
“Oregon law also provides that determining “whether an individual has a disability as provided in ORS 659A.104(1) shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under ORS 659A.”
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024).
“” See ORS § 659A.104.(1)-(2). In her FAC, Plaintiff alleges that she “is a ‘disabled person’ as defined at ORS § 659A.”
Mathisen v. Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. (D. Or. 2023).
“8 Plaintiff’s FAC implies that her disability prevented her from receiving a vaccination, see FAC ¶ 31, but she cites no authority to support the conclusion that the activity of receiving a vaccination is a qualifying “major life activity” within the meaning of ORS 659A.104(1).…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(1)(a) — 9 cases
Huitt v. Optum Health Servs., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1179 (D. Or. 2016).
“Plaintiff alleges in her First Claim that she has a disability as defined by Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.104(1)(a) that substantially limits her ability to perform major life activities, that she was a qualified individual with a disability, that she was able to perform the…”
A. K. F. v. Burdette, 484 P.3d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“ORS 659A.104(1)(a) is one statute that defines “person with a disability” the same way that ORS 410.”
McClusky v. City of North Bend, 481 P.3d 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“010, but reenacted the same rel- evant text in ORS 659A.104(1)(a). Or Laws 2001, ch 621, § 1.”
Mathisen v. Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. (D. Or. 2023).
“8 Plaintiff’s FAC implies that her disability prevented her from receiving a vaccination, see FAC ¶ 31, but she cites no authority to support the conclusion that the activity of receiving a vaccination is a qualifying “major life activity” within the meaning of ORS 659A.104(1).…”
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024).
“” See ORS § 659A.104.(1)-(2). In her FAC, Plaintiff alleges that she “is a ‘disabled person’ as defined at ORS § 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(1)(b) — 1 case
Mathisen v. Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. (D. Or. 2023).
“8 Plaintiff’s FAC implies that her disability prevented her from receiving a vaccination, see FAC ¶ 31, but she cites no authority to support the conclusion that the activity of receiving a vaccination is a qualifying “major life activity” within the meaning of ORS 659A.104(1).…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(2) — 4 cases
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024).
“” See ORS § 659A.104.(1)-(2). In her FAC, Plaintiff alleges that she “is a ‘disabled person’ as defined at ORS § 659A.”
Bassett v. Truveta, Inc. (D. Or. 2025).
“Oregon law also provides that determining “whether an individual has a disability as provided in ORS 659A.104(1) shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under ORS 659A.”
Mathisen v. Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. (D. Or. 2023).
“8 Plaintiff’s FAC implies that her disability prevented her from receiving a vaccination, see FAC ¶ 31, but she cites no authority to support the conclusion that the activity of receiving a vaccination is a qualifying “major life activity” within the meaning of ORS 659A.104(1).…”
Sanderl v. St. Charles Health Sys., Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
“” Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(1)(a)-(b). Examples of “[a]ctivities and functions that are considered major life activities for the purpose of determining if an individual has a disability include” sensory abilities, bodily movement, caring for oneself, and working.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(2)(f) — 2 cases
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024).
“” ORS § 659A.104(1)(a). Activities that are considered “major life activities” include 7 Plaintiff also alleges discrimination under Oregon disability law under a theory of “hostile work environment” but does not identify any provision of ORS Chapter 659A that would support that…”
Jackson v. Gill (D. Or. 2020).
“For purposes Accommodations violations, ORS 659A.104(2)(f),” and violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under 42 U.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(3) — 3 cases
A. K. F. v. Burdette, 484 P.3d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“ORS 659A.104(1)(a) is one statute that defines “person with a disability” the same way that ORS 410.”
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024).
“” ORS § 659A.104(1)(a). Activities that are considered “major life activities” include 7 Plaintiff also alleges discrimination under Oregon disability law under a theory of “hostile work environment” but does not identify any provision of ORS Chapter 659A that would support that…”
Sanderl v. St. Charles Health Sys., Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
“” Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(1)(a)-(b). Examples of “[a]ctivities and functions that are considered major life activities for the purpose of determining if an individual has a disability include” sensory abilities, bodily movement, caring for oneself, and working.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(4) — 1 case
Sanderl v. St. Charles Health Sys., Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
“” Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(1)(a)-(b). Examples of “[a]ctivities and functions that are considered major life activities for the purpose of determining if an individual has a disability include” sensory abilities, bodily movement, caring for oneself, and working.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(4)(a) — 1 case
Sanderl v. St. Charles Health Sys., Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
“” Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(1)(a)-(b). Examples of “[a]ctivities and functions that are considered major life activities for the purpose of determining if an individual has a disability include” sensory abilities, bodily movement, caring for oneself, and working.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.104(a) — 1 case
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.