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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.139 (2026)

Construction of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145

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

      659A.139 Construction of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145. (1) ORS 659A.103 to 659A.144 shall be construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the federal ADA Amendments Act of 2008 and as otherwise amended.

      (2) The determination of 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.103 to 659A.145, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145. [Formerly 659.449; 2009 c.508 §13; 2013 c.740 §12]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Washburn v. Columbia Forest Prods., Inc., 134 P.3d 161 (Or. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washburn v. Columbia Forest Prods., Inc., 134 P.3d 161 (Or. 2006). · cites it 16× “139 appears to be a `lockstep' statute, designed to make state law a mirror image of federal law in many respects.”
Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010). · cites it 6× “First, it reasoned that the requirement in ORS 659A.139 to interpret ORS 659A.112 consistently with the ADA does not require absolute symmetry between state and federal law.”
Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A., 441 P.3d 699 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “(1) Federal lockstep statute, ORS 659A.139 Under ORS 659A.139, Oregon courts must construe ORS 659A.”
Matthew Head v. Glacier Nw., Inc., 413 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.139 (stating “ORS 659A.”
Washburn v. Columbia Forest Prods., Inc., 104 P.3d 609 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “Before the trial court, defendant contended that a United States Supreme Court decision regarding a similar provision of federal law is precedent not only as to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, 42 USC §§ 12101 to 12213 (2000), but also as to Oregon law.”
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011). · cites it 4× “See Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.139 (claims brought under Oregon law are “construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with .”
Kelley v. Washington Cnty., 463 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “” ORS 659A.139. For that reason, interpreta- tions of those federal laws are useful in our determination of whether an employer has engaged in impermissible discrim- ination under ORS 659A.”
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 445 P.3d 281 (Or. 2019). “139(1) (requiring that state provisions prohibiting unlawful discrimination against persons with disabilities "be construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990"); ORS 659A.186(2)…”
Johnson v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 415 P.3d 1071 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “In addition to challenging BOLI's determination that she violated ORS 659A.”
Evans v. Multnomah Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 57 P.3d 211 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “Defendant, however, notes that ORS 659A.139 requires Oregon’s disability discrimination statutes to “be construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.”
Benz v. West Linn Paper Co., 803 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Or. 2011). · cites it 2× “2 (j)(2); see also Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.139(1) (requiring Oregon’s disability discrimination statutes to be “construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990”).”
Arnold v. Pfizer, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Or. 2013). “2d 207 (1998) (noting that the Oregon statutory scheme regarding workplace discrimination against disabled persons “contain[s] language significantly similar to the ADA”); see also ORS 659A.139 (“O.R.S. 659A.112 to 659A.139 shall be construed to the extent possible in a manner…”
Show all 51 citing cases →
Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.139(1): 16 cases
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 445 P.3d 281 (Or. 2019). “139(1) (requiring that state provisions prohibiting unlawful discrimination against persons with disabilities "be construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990"); ORS 659A.186(2)…”
Benz v. West Linn Paper Co., 803 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Or. 2011). “2 (j)(2); see also Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.139(1) (requiring Oregon’s disability discrimination statutes to be “construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990”).”
A. K. F. v. Burdette, 484 P.3d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Wiederhold v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Or. 2012).
Dept. of Rev. v. Wakefield, 25 Or. Tax 1 (Or. T.C. 2022).
Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.139(2): 1 case
Bassett v. Truveta, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-01885 (D. Or. Aug. 25, 2025).
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.