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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.183 (2026)

Denying family leave to eligible employee prohibited; retaliation prohibited

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

      659A.183 Denying family leave to eligible employee prohibited; retaliation prohibited. It is an unlawful practice for a covered employer to:

      (1) Deny family leave to which an eligible employee is entitled under ORS 659A.150 to 659A.186; or

      (2) Retaliate or in any way discriminate against an individual with respect to hire or tenure or any other term or condition of employment because the individual has inquired about the provisions of ORS 659A.150 to 659A.186, submitted a request for family leave or invoked any provision of ORS 659A.150 to 659A.186. [Formerly 659.492; 2007 c.777 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 490 P.3d 166 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 490 P.3d 166 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “112; and (3) interfering with her protected medical leave, in violation of ORS 659A.183. Plaintiff additionally alleges that defen- dants unlawfully aided and abetted those alleged unlaw- ful employment practices themselves, in violation of ORS 659A.”
Yeager v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 96 P.3d 862 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “See ORS 659A.183 (“A covered employer who denies family leave to an eligible employee in the manner required by ORS 659A.”
Larmanger v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Or. 2012). “, including ORS 659A.183; FMLA 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.”
Reaves v. Nexstar Broad., Inc., 327 F. Supp. 3d 1352 (D. Or. 2018). “I deny Defendants' motion on the reasonable accommodation claims. II. OFLA Claim OFLA, like its federal counterpart the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), prohibits an employer from taking negative action against an employee who has requested leave.”
Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Antti, 998 F. Supp. 2d 968 (D. Or. 2014). “*972 § 2615 (a)(1); ORS 659A.183 (unlawful employment practice to deny family leave to an eligible employee, or retaliate or discriminate against an individual requesting leave).”
Cullen v. Clean Water Servs., 344 Or. App. 228 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “171, denied him the abil- ity to take OFLA leave, in violation of ORS 659A.183(1), and failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his disabil- ity, ORS 659A.”
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024). · cites it 8× “§ 2615 (a); see also ORS § 659A.183 (OFLA analogue making it unlawful for a covered employer to “[d]eny family leave to which an eligible employee is entitled” and to “[r]etaliate or in any way discriminate against an individual with respect to .”
Cilione v. Techfive, LLC (D. Or. 2020). · cites it 7× “030; (2) retaliated against her for using protected medical leave, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.183; (3) retaliated against her for whistleblowing, in violation of Or.”
Stillwell v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (D. Or. 2021). · cites it 6× “§ 12203 ; (4) OFLA Leave Interference, ORS § 659A.183; (5) OSLA Discrimination, ORS § 653.”
Hanson v. State of Oregon, Legislative Assembly (D. Or. 2023). · cites it 4× “ORS § 659A.183. OFLA provides no explicit interference claim.”
Canning v. Washington Cnty. (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 4× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.183; see Or. Admin.”
Miller v. St. Charles Health Sys., Inc. (D. Or. 2019). · cites it 2× “Claim II is discrimination claim under FMLA; claim IV, also a discrimination claim, is brought under OFLA, ORS § 659A.183(1). Defendant moves for summary judgment on all four of plaintiff’s claims.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.183(1) — 4 cases
Cullen v. Clean Water Servs., 344 Or. App. 228 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “171, denied him the abil- ity to take OFLA leave, in violation of ORS 659A.183(1), and failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his disabil- ity, ORS 659A.”
Cilione v. Techfive, LLC (D. Or. 2020). “030; (2) retaliated against her for using protected medical leave, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.183; (3) retaliated against her for whistleblowing, in violation of Or.”
Miller v. St. Charles Health Sys., Inc. (D. Or. 2019). “Claim II is discrimination claim under FMLA; claim IV, also a discrimination claim, is brought under OFLA, ORS § 659A.183(1). Defendant moves for summary judgment on all four of plaintiff’s claims.”
Cullen v. Clean Water Servs., 344 Or. App. 228 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.183(2) — 3 cases
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024). “§ 2615 (a); see also ORS § 659A.183 (OFLA analogue making it unlawful for a covered employer to “[d]eny family leave to which an eligible employee is entitled” and to “[r]etaliate or in any way discriminate against an individual with respect to .”
Canning v. Washington Cnty. (D. Or. 2025). “Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.183; see Or. Admin.”
Cooper v. Robert G. Rust, Jr., D.M.D., PC, 343 Or. App. 390 (Or. Ct. App. 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.