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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.109 (2026)

Discrimination against individual for using procedures in ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 prohibited

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      659A.109 Discrimination against individual for using procedures in ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 prohibited. It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an individual with respect to hire or tenure or any term or condition of employment because the individual has applied for benefits or invoked or used the procedures provided for in ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 or has given testimony under the provisions of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145. [Formerly 659.410; 2009 c.508 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 218 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 218 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “145[,]” in violation of ORS 659A.109. Defendant argues that it could not have discriminated against plaintiff for requesting an accommodation as a disabled person because (1) plaintiff was not disabled and (2) plaintiff did not request any accommodation until after her…”
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff concedes that summary judgment is appropriate on his disability retaliation claim against the City, pursuant to Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.109; his whistleblowing claim against Kahn and Johnson, pursuant to Or.”
Chase v. Vernam, 110 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “ORS 659A.109; ORS 659A.043; ORS 659A.885(1).”
Anderson v. Hibu, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (D. Or. 2014). · cites it 6× “410, renumbered ORS § 659A.109, and ORS § 659.415, renum *1029 bered ORS § 659A.”
Arnold v. Pfizer, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Or. 2013). · cites it 2× “Protected Activity Under the ADA, it is unlawful to “discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, 'testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an…”
Sharer v. Oregon, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Or. 2007). · cites it 3× “100-145 and discharged her in retaliation for invoking these rights in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.109. Section 659A.109 provides in pertinent part: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against a worker with respect to hire or…”
Larmanger v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Or. 2012). “; (3) disability discrimination in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.109 and/or § 659A.112; (4) violation of whistleblower protection under Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.”
Dew v. City of Scappoose, 145 P.3d 198 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “410 (1999), renumbered as ORS 659A.109 (2001) by discriminating against her on the basis of her application for workers’ compensation benefits.”
Larmanger v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 805 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (D. Or. 2011). · cites it 2× “; (3) disability discrimination in violation of Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.109 and/or § 659A.112; (4) violation of whistle-blower protection under Or.”
Beaver v. NPC Int'l, Inc., 451 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D. Or. 2006). “Either action would violate [§ 659A.109].” Because a construction of the workers’ compensation laws codified in ORS chapter 656 is not essential for determining the validity of discrimination claims brought under ORS chapter 659A, those discrimination claims are not ones…”
Heiple v. Henderson, 215 P.3d 891 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “See ORS 659A.109 (providing that it is an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against a worker because the worker “has applied for benefits or invoked or utilized the procedures provided for in ORS 659A.”
Cullen v. Clean Water Servs., 580 P.3d 371 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “112, or because he engaged in a protected activity (in this case, seeking accommodation for his disability), ORS 659A.109. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants failed to reinstate him after his protected medi- cal leave, in violation of ORS 659A.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.109(1): 1 case
Chase v. Vernam, 110 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “ORS 659A.109; ORS 659A.043; ORS 659A.885(1).”
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.