Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.124 (2026)

Illegal use of drugs

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

659A.124 Illegal use of drugs. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, the protections of ORS 659A.112 do not apply to any job applicant or employee who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs if the employer takes action based on that conduct.

(2) The protections of ORS 659A.112 apply to the following individuals:

(a) An individual who has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs or has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs.

(b) An individual who is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs.

(3) An employer may adopt or administer reasonable policies or procedures, including but not limited to drug testing, designed to ensure that an individual described in subsection (2)(a) or (b) of this section is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs. [Formerly 659.442; 2009 c.508 §9]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2006–2010 · leading case: Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010). · cites it 51× “Like the ADA, ORS 659A.124 provides that the protections of ORS 659A.”

Washburn v. Columbia Forest Prods., Inc., 134 P.3d 161 (Or. 2006). “" ORS 659A.124. He observes, however, that the "illegal use of drugs" does not include "the use of a drug taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional[.”

Willis v. Winters, 234 P.3d 141 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “122(2) and used in ORS 659A.124. It follows that BOLI could not rely on the exclusion in ORS 659A.”

Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 186 P.3d 300 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “” Second, employer argues that ORS 659A.124 “is taken virtually verbatim from 42 USC section 12114 (a); and *436 provides that the protections of ORS 659A.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.124(1) — 1 case

Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010). “Like the ADA, ORS 659A.124 provides that the protections of ORS 659A.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.124(2) — 1 case

Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010). “Like the ADA, ORS 659A.124 provides that the protections of ORS 659A.”

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.