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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.186 (2026)

Exclusivity of provisions; construction; concurrent leave

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

      659A.186 Exclusivity of provisions; construction; concurrent leave. (1) ORS 659A.150 to 659A.186 do not limit any right of an employee to any leave that is similar to the leave described in ORS 659A.159 (1) and to which the employee may be entitled under any agreement between the employer and the employee, collective bargaining agreement or employer policy.

      (2) ORS 659A.150 to 659A.186 shall be construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. If family leave taken under ORS 659A.150 to 659A.186 qualifies as protected leave pursuant to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-3), family leave taken under ORS 659A.150 to 659A.186 must be taken concurrently with, and not in addition to, any leave taken under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-3). [Formerly 659.494; 2013 c.384 §6; 2023 c.203 §8; 2024 c.20 §19]

 

LEAVE TO ATTEND CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 445 P.3d 281 (Or. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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)…”
Yeager v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 96 P.3d 862 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “In light of ORS 659A.186(2), we conclude that the Oregon legislature likely had the same goals in mind when it adopted OFIA.”
Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Or. 2012). “OFLA Because the parties agree Denison’s OFLA claim is subject to the same analysis as her FMLA claim pursuant to ORS 659A.186(2), my analysis of Denison’s FMLA claim applies equally to her OFLA claim.”
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011). “§ 659A.186(2) (claims brought under Oregon law are “construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of [the FMLA]”); Hess v.”
McCauley v. ASML US, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (D. Or. 2013). “The parties agree Plaintiffs OFLA claims are subject to the same analysis as his FMLA claims pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.186(2). The Court’s analysis of Plaintiff’s FMLA claims, therefore, applies equally to Plaintiff’s OFLA claims.”
Davis v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist., 45 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (D. Or. 2014). “§ 659A.186(2). For an interference claim, the employee “need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her taking of FMLA-protected leave constituted a negative factor in” an employment decision.”
Hanson v. State of Oregon, Legislative Assembly (D. Or. 2023). · cites it 7× “ORS § 659A.186(2). The Court first describes why the FMLA does not apply to Hanson.”
Tomlinson v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2024). · cites it 4× “between Plaintiff taking FMLA/OFLA leave and the adverse employment actions she complains about.”
Canning v. Washington Cnty. (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 3× “As noted above, the OFLA should be construed "to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions" of the FMLA, Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.186(2), and "an OFLA claim rooted in facts constituting an interference claim under the FMLA also may be properly…”
Rozairo v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n (D. Or. 2019). · cites it 2× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.186(2). The FMLA, enacted in 1993, was intended “to achieve a balance that reflected the needs of both employees and their employers.”
Kelly v. Boeing Co. (D. Or. 2019). · cites it 2× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.186(2). The FMLA, enacted in 1993, was intended “to achieve a balance that reflected the needs of both employees and their employers.”
Miller v. St. Charles Health Sys., Inc. (D. Or. 2019). · cites it 2× “ORS § 659A.186(2); see also Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.186(2) — 22 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)…”
Yeager v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 96 P.3d 862 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “In light of ORS 659A.186(2), we conclude that the Oregon legislature likely had the same goals in mind when it adopted OFIA.”
Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Nw., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Or. 2012). “OFLA Because the parties agree Denison’s OFLA claim is subject to the same analysis as her FMLA claim pursuant to ORS 659A.186(2), my analysis of Denison’s FMLA claim applies equally to her OFLA claim.”
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011). “§ 659A.186(2) (claims brought under Oregon law are “construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any similar provisions of [the FMLA]”); Hess v.”
McCauley v. ASML US, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (D. Or. 2013). “The parties agree Plaintiffs OFLA claims are subject to the same analysis as his FMLA claims pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.186(2). The Court’s analysis of Plaintiff’s FMLA claims, therefore, applies equally to Plaintiff’s OFLA claims.”
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.