Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.199

Prohibited conduct by employer

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

      659A.199 Prohibited conduct by employer. (1) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.

      (2) The remedies provided by this chapter are in addition to any common law remedy or other remedy that may be available to an employee for the conduct constituting a violation of this section. [2009 c.524 §2]

 

(Disclosures by Public and Nonprofit Employees)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 122 cases (80 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Matteo Brunozzi v. Cable Communications, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matteo Brunozzi v. Cable Communications, Inc. (2017) ca9 · cites it 15× “Brunozzi additionally alleges that CCI violated Oregon’s laws prohibiting discrimination against a private employee who engages in whistleblowing (ORS 659A.199) and wage-claim discussions (ORS 652.”
Burley v. Clackamas Cnty. (2019) orctapp · cites it 29× “The main question on appeal is whether ORS 659A.199, which makes it unlawful for an "employer" to retaliate against an employee "for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal…”
Neighorn v. Quest Health Care (2012) ord · cites it 44× “2009) (codified at Or.Rev. Stat. § 659A.199). The statute provides, in relevant part: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or…”
Huitt v. Optum Health Services (2016) ord · cites it 21× “5, 2014)(“ORS § 659A.199 provides an adequate (if not better) remedy than a wrongful termination claim.”
Lindsey v. Clatskanie People's Utility District (2015) ord · cites it 24× “203 and ORS § 659A.199 ORS § 659A.203 forbids a public employer from “[p]rohibit[ing] any employee from , disclosing, or tak[ing] or threatening] to take disciplinary action against an employee for the disclosure of any information that the employee reasonably believes is…”
Tornabene v. Northwest Permanente, P.C. (2015) ord · cites it 27× “§ 2000e-2(a); (3) retaliation because of Plaintiffs good faith reports about Defendant’s quality of care and treatment of women in the workplace, in violation of ORS § 659A.199; (4) retaliation because of Plaintiffs opposition to unlawful employment practices, in violation of…”
Folz v. State ex rel. Oregon Department of Transportation (2017) orctapp · cites it 9× “Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against defendants, alleging violations of several whistleblowing statutes, ORS 659A.199, ORS 659A.203, 1 and ORS 659A.”
Rinallo v. CAPSA Solutions, LLC (2016) ord · cites it 19× “” *929 On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction in which she alleges she was wrongfully terminated by Defendant “for resisting sexual harassment in violation of common law and ORS 659A.199” and “for pursuing workers…”
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc. (2018) orctapp · cites it 8× “062(5) ; (2) whistleblower retaliation under ORS 659A.199 ; (3) common law wrongful discharge; and (4) a state law wage and hour claim.”
Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC (2021) orctapp · cites it 11× “aintiff’s “wrongful discharge claim under Oregon common law is not available because ORS [chapter] 659A provides adequate remedies to Plaintiff for any alleged retaliation for engaging in pro- tected employment activity,” noting that, in its view, plain- tiff’s claim would…”
Cuddigan-Placito v. SAIF (2024) orctapp · cites it 28× “030(1)(f), ORS 659A.199, and ORS 659A.203 against her former employer, State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation (SAIF), based on allegations that SAIF had terminated her in retaliation for reporting unlawful conduct.”
Boyd v. Legacy Health (2022) orctapp · cites it 9× “Following his termination, plaintiff sued defendant and asserted four claims: (1) statutory retaliation under ORS 659A.199 (prohibiting discrimination due to employee’s good-faith report of violation of law); (2) statutory retali- ation under ORS 441.”
Show all 122 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.199(1) — 41 cases
Boyd v. Legacy Health (2022) orctapp “Following his termination, plaintiff sued defendant and asserted four claims: (1) statutory retaliation under ORS 659A.199 (prohibiting discrimination due to employee’s good-faith report of violation of law); (2) statutory retali- ation under ORS 441.”
Neighorn v. Quest Health Care (2012) ord “2009) (codified at Or.Rev. Stat. § 659A.199). The statute provides, in relevant part: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or…”
Matteo Brunozzi v. Cable Communications, Inc. (2017) ca9 “Brunozzi additionally alleges that CCI violated Oregon’s laws prohibiting discrimination against a private employee who engages in whistleblowing (ORS 659A.199) and wage-claim discussions (ORS 652.”
Summerfield v. OLCC (2020) or
Perez-Denison v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Northwest (2012) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.199(2) — 6 cases
Huitt v. Optum Health Services (2016) ord “5, 2014)(“ORS § 659A.199 provides an adequate (if not better) remedy than a wrongful termination claim.”
Lindsey v. Clatskanie People's Utility District (2015) ord “203 and ORS § 659A.199 ORS § 659A.203 forbids a public employer from “[p]rohibit[ing] any employee from , disclosing, or tak[ing] or threatening] to take disciplinary action against an employee for the disclosure of any information that the employee reasonably believes is…”
Rinallo v. CAPSA Solutions, LLC (2016) ord “” *929 On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction in which she alleges she was wrongfully terminated by Defendant “for resisting sexual harassment in violation of common law and ORS 659A.199” and “for pursuing workers…”
Tornabene v. Northwest Permanente, P.C. (2015) ord “§ 2000e-2(a); (3) retaliation because of Plaintiffs good faith reports about Defendant’s quality of care and treatment of women in the workplace, in violation of ORS § 659A.199; (4) retaliation because of Plaintiffs opposition to unlawful employment practices, in violation of…”
United States ex rel. Witkin v. Medtronic, Inc. (2016) mad
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.199(a) — 1 case
Huitt v. Optum Health Services (2016) ord “5, 2014)(“ORS § 659A.199 provides an adequate (if not better) remedy than a wrongful termination claim.”
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.