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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.115 (2026)

Qualification for position

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

      659A.115 Qualification for position. For the purposes of ORS 659A.112, an individual is qualified for a position if the individual, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position. For the purpose of determining the essential functions of the position, due consideration shall be given to the employer’s determination as to the essential functions of a position. If an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for a job, the position description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job. [Formerly 659.437; 2007 c.70 §292; 2009 c.508 §7]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Kelley v. Washington Cnty., 463 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kelley v. Washington Cnty., 463 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “112(1), disability discrimination includes the failure to “make reasonable accommodation to the known physical limitations of a qualified individual with a disability.” ORS 659A.112(2)(e). Employers need only accommodate such physical limitations when the individu- als are…”
Evans v. Multnomah Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 57 P.3d 211 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “” Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff was not a disabled person for purposes of the statute *737 and that, if he was, he was not “otherwise qualified” as that term is defined in ORS 659A.115: “the person, with or without reasonable accommodation, can…”
Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 84 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “” ORS 659A.115. *273 Defendant moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs disability discrimination claim on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to show the existence of a material issue of fact about whether she was a disabled person — i.”
Stamper v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 97 P.3d 680 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “” Under ORS 659A.115, a person is otherwise qualified if “the person, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position.”
Cooper v. Robert G. Rust, Jr., D.M.D., PC, 343 Or. App. 390 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “” ORS 659A.115. Defendants argue that plaintiff was not actually qualified for the position because she was not performing the job adequately, did not want the job, and that her absences were not a reasonable accommo- dation.”
Love v. Prime, Inc., 312 P.3d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” ORS 659A.115 (2007), amended by Or Laws 2009, ch 508, § 7.”
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.