Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.112 (2026)

Employment discrimination

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

      659A.112 Employment discrimination. (1) It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to hire, employ or promote, to bar or discharge from employment or to discriminate in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of disability.

      (2) An employer violates subsection (1) of this section if the employer does any of the following:

      (a) The employer limits, segregates or classifies a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of the applicant or employee because the applicant or employee has a disability.

      (b) The employer participates in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a qualified job applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by ORS 659A.112 to 659A.139, including but not limited to participating in a relationship with an employment or referral agency, a labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the employer, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs.

      (c) The employer utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability, or that perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control.

      (d) The employer excludes or otherwise denies equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because the individual is known to have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability.

      (e) The employer does not make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability who is a job applicant or employee, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the employer.

      (f) The employer denies employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is a qualified individual with a disability, if the denial is based on the need of the employer to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant.

      (g) The employer uses qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria, including those based on an individual’s uncorrected vision or unaided hearing, that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criterion, as used by the employer, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity.

      (h) The employer fails to select and administer tests relating to employment in the most effective manner to ensure that when the test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude or other characteristics of the applicant or employee that the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills of the employee or applicant. The provisions of this paragraph do not limit the ability of an employer to select or administer tests designed to measure sensory, manual or speaking skills of an employee or job applicant. [Formerly 659.436; 2007 c.70 §291; 2009 c.508 §6]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 108 cases (56 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010).
Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010). · cites it 56× “Two months later, employee filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), alleging that employer had discriminated against him in violation of ORS 659A.112. That statute prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified person because of a disability and…”
Washburn v. Columbia Forest Prods., Inc., 134 P.3d 161 (Or. 2006). · cites it 30× “This case involves the Oregon statutes that prohibit unlawful workplace discrimination against disabled persons, ORS 659A.112 to 659A.139. The issue before us is whether those provisions require an employer to make a disability-related accommodation for an employee who uses…”
Huitt v. Optum Health Servs., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1179 (D. Or. 2016). · cites it 10× “199 when it subjected her to “a hostile working environment and discriminatory treatment” after she reported to Defendant what Plaintiff “believed were possible violations of HIPPA [sic] and other privacy laws by certain other employees” and (2) violated Oregon Revised Statute §…”
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011). · cites it 8× “Plaintiffs fourth claim asserts that the City discriminated against him because of his disability, thereby violating Or.Rev. Stat. § 659A.112. Section 659A.112 makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment…”
Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc., 297 P.3d 1277 (Or. 2013). · cites it 6× “As noted, plaintiff brought this action against defendant on a theory of promissory estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unlawful employment practices, including employment discrimination under ORS 659A.112. 2 As part of his claim for damages, plaintiff sought economic…”
Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 218 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “109, not ORS 659A.112. Plaintiff contends that defendant discriminated against her not by refusing to provide the requested accommodation, but by terminating her for having made the request.”
Matthew Head v. Glacier Nw., Inc., a Washington Corp., 413 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “139 (stating "ORS 659A.112 to 659A.139" are construed in accordance with the ADA.”
Kelley v. Washington Cnty., 463 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “McKennon, 215 Or 562, 572-73 , 336 P2d 340 (1959) (state law cannot incorporate future federal regulations), nothing in [federal law] is incon- sistent with interpreting ORS 659A.112 as we have done here.”). Cite as 303 Or App 20 (2020) 27 disability holds or desires.”
Evans v. Multnomah Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 57 P.3d 211 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “Plaintiff then brought this action, alleging that defendant’s refusal violated ORS 659A.112, 1 which requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for otherwise qualified disabled persons unless doing so imposes an undue hardship: “(1) It is an unlawful employment…”
Tracy Dunlap v. Liberty Nat. Prods., 878 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2017). “Dunlap then filed an action against Liberty, alleging employment discrimination based on disability under the ADA and under Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 659A.112, 659A.040, 659A.”
Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Antti, 998 F. Supp. 2d 968 (D. Or. 2014). · cites it 7× “¶ 39(a), ¶ 55 (Oak Harbor discriminated under the ADA and ORS 659A.112 by requiring him “each time he was absent to verify with a note from his medical provider that his absence was due to his qualifying medical condition”); Argyle Countercl.”
Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 944 A.2d 925 (Conn. 2008). “4-03 (2007); Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.112 (2) (e) (2005); R.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.112(1) — 20 cases
Huitt v. Optum Health Servs., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1179 (D. Or. 2016). “199 when it subjected her to “a hostile working environment and discriminatory treatment” after she reported to Defendant what Plaintiff “believed were possible violations of HIPPA [sic] and other privacy laws by certain other employees” and (2) violated Oregon Revised Statute §…”
Kelley v. Washington Cnty., 463 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “McKennon, 215 Or 562, 572-73 , 336 P2d 340 (1959) (state law cannot incorporate future federal regulations), nothing in [federal law] is incon- sistent with interpreting ORS 659A.112 as we have done here.”). Cite as 303 Or App 20 (2020) 27 disability holds or desires.”
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011). “Plaintiffs fourth claim asserts that the City discriminated against him because of his disability, thereby violating Or.Rev. Stat. § 659A.112. Section 659A.112 makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment…”
Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 218 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “109, not ORS 659A.112. Plaintiff contends that defendant discriminated against her not by refusing to provide the requested accommodation, but by terminating her for having made the request.”
Nakashima v. Bd. of Educ., 131 P.3d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.112(2) — 3 cases
McIntyre v. Douglas Cnty. (D. Or. 2022).
Jason v. Adobe, Inc. (D. Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.112(2)(c) — 2 cases
Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010). “Two months later, employee filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), alleging that employer had discriminated against him in violation of ORS 659A.112. That statute prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified person because of a disability and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.112(2)(e) — 20 cases
Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010). “Two months later, employee filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), alleging that employer had discriminated against him in violation of ORS 659A.112. That statute prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified person because of a disability and…”
Washburn v. Columbia Forest Prods., Inc., 134 P.3d 161 (Or. 2006). “This case involves the Oregon statutes that prohibit unlawful workplace discrimination against disabled persons, ORS 659A.112 to 659A.139. The issue before us is whether those provisions require an employer to make a disability-related accommodation for an employee who uses…”
Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 218 P.3d 542 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “109, not ORS 659A.112. Plaintiff contends that defendant discriminated against her not by refusing to provide the requested accommodation, but by terminating her for having made the request.”
Kelley v. Washington Cnty., 463 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “McKennon, 215 Or 562, 572-73 , 336 P2d 340 (1959) (state law cannot incorporate future federal regulations), nothing in [federal law] is incon- sistent with interpreting ORS 659A.112 as we have done here.”). Cite as 303 Or App 20 (2020) 27 disability holds or desires.”
Honstein v. Metro West Ambulance Serv., Inc., 90 P.3d 1030 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.112(a) — 2 cases
Davis v. Con-Way Freight Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2015).
Hussein (D. Or. 2026).
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.