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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203 (2026)

Prohibited conduct by public or nonprofit employer; prohibited conduct by school services employer during public health emergency; remedies

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

      659A.203 Prohibited conduct by public or nonprofit employer; prohibited conduct by school services employer during public health emergency; remedies. (1) Subject to ORS 659A.206, except as provided in ORS 659A.200 to 659A.224, it is an unlawful employment practice for any public or nonprofit employer to:

      (a) Prohibit any employee from discussing, either specifically or generally with any member of the Legislative Assembly, legislative committee staff acting under the direction of a member of the Legislative Assembly, any member of the elected governing body of a political subdivision in the state or any elected auditor of a city, county or metropolitan service district, the activities of:

      (A) The state or any agency of or political subdivision in the state; or

      (B) Any person authorized to act on behalf of the state or any agency of or political subdivision in the state.

      (b) Prohibit any employee from disclosing, or take or threaten to take disciplinary action against an employee for the disclosure of any information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of:

      (A) A violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation by the public or nonprofit employer;

      (B) Mismanagement, gross waste of funds or abuse of authority or substantial and specific danger to public health and safety resulting from action of the public or nonprofit employer; or

      (C) Subject to ORS 659A.212 (2), the fact that a person receiving services, benefits or assistance from the state or agency or subdivision, is subject to a felony or misdemeanor warrant for arrest issued by this state, any other state, the federal government, or any territory, commonwealth or governmental instrumentality of the United States.

      (c) Require any employee to give notice prior to making any disclosure or engaging in discussion described in this section, except as allowed in ORS 659A.206 (1).

      (d) Discourage, restrain, dissuade, coerce, prevent or otherwise interfere with disclosure or discussions described in this section.

      (2) A public or nonprofit employer may not invoke or impose any disciplinary action against an employee for employee activity described in subsection (1) of this section or ORS 659A.212.

      (3) It is an unlawful employment practice for any school services employer to invoke or impose any disciplinary action against a school services employee for reporting or filing a complaint alleging a violation of any law, regulation or standard pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic.

      (4) The remedies provided by this section are in addition to any remedy provided to an employee under ORS 659A.199 or other remedy that may be available to an employee for the conduct alleged as a violation of this section.

      (5) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor. [Formerly 659.510; 2010 c.24 §1; 2016 c.73 §4; 2020 s.s.3 c.4 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74 cases (35 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Walker v. Oregon Travel Info. Council, 484 P.3d 1035 (Or. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Walker v. Oregon Travel Info. Council, 484 P.3d 1035 (Or. 2021). · cites it 21× “” Unless otherwise stated, further references to ORS 659A.203 in this opinion are to the 2015 version.”
Lindsey v. Clatskanie People's Util. Dist., 140 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (D. Or. 2015). · cites it 25× “under ORS § 659A.203 and ORS § 659A.199 ORS § 659A.”
Folz v. State ex rel. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 404 P.3d 1036 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 15× “199, ORS 659A.203, 1 and ORS 659A.230. 2 Plaintiff claimed that defendants engaged in a series of retaliatory employment actions against her for reporting possible violations of disability discrimination laws in the course of her employment with the Oregon Department of…”
Burley v. Clackamas Cnty., 446 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 12× “199 and ORS 659A.203, alleging that the county unlawfully retaliated against her in violation of those statutes after she had made reports regarding the improper use of federal grant funds associated with county programs.”
Harper v. Mt. Hood Cmty. Coll., 388 P.3d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 13× “Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing her claims against defendant, Mount Hood Community College (MHCC), based on the Oregon Public Employee Whistle-blower Law, ORS 659A.203. 1 Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she was discharged in retaliation for reporting…”
Huber v. Oregon Dep't of Educ., 230 P.3d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 15× “230 for initiating a civil proceeding; (3) his claim pursuant to ORS 659A.203 for “whistleblowing” — that is, for disclosing information regarding, among other things, violations of state and federal law; and (4) his claim for a common-law wrongful discharge.”
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). · cites it 2× “); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(1)(c) (2003). [12] See n.”
Hall v. State, 366 P.3d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “199, 3 ORS 659A.203, 4 and ORS 659A.230, 5 common-law wrongful discharge, and a claim for violation of due process rights under 42 USC section 1983 .”
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011). · cites it 10× “109; his whistleblowing claim against Kahn and Johnson, pursuant to Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.203; and his punitive damages claim against the City, pursuant to 42 U.”
Daniel v. Oregon Health & Sciences Univ., 262 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (D. Or. 2017). · cites it 7× “2000e-3(a), (3) retaliation in violation of state law under ORS 659A.203, and (4) violation of equal protection under 42 U.”
Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 120 P.3d 1235 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff brought this action against his employer, the Oregon Lottery (Lottery), and several of its managers, alleging violations of the Oregon Public Employee Whistle-blower Law (Whistleblower Law), ORS 659A.203 to 659A.236, and the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USC section…”
Medina v. State, 377 P.3d 626 (Wasco Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 6× “ORS 659A.203 provides, in part: “(1) *** [I]t is an unlawful employment practice for any public employer to: «‡‡⅜⅜⅜ “(b) Prohibit any employee from disclosing, or take or threaten to take disciplinary action against an employee for the disclosure of any information that the…”
Show all 74 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(1) — 12 cases
Walker v. Oregon Travel Info. Council, 484 P.3d 1035 (Or. 2021). “” Unless otherwise stated, further references to ORS 659A.203 in this opinion are to the 2015 version.”
Love v. Polk Cnty. Fire Dist., 149 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011). “109; his whistleblowing claim against Kahn and Johnson, pursuant to Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.203; and his punitive damages claim against the City, pursuant to 42 U.”
Folz v. State ex rel. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 404 P.3d 1036 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “199, ORS 659A.203, 1 and ORS 659A.230. 2 Plaintiff claimed that defendants engaged in a series of retaliatory employment actions against her for reporting possible violations of disability discrimination laws in the course of her employment with the Oregon Department of…”
Hall v. State, 366 P.3d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “199, 3 ORS 659A.203, 4 and ORS 659A.230, 5 common-law wrongful discharge, and a claim for violation of due process rights under 42 USC section 1983 .”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(1)(B) — 1 case
Reyna v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(1)(b) — 10 cases
Burley v. Clackamas Cnty., 446 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “199 and ORS 659A.203, alleging that the county unlawfully retaliated against her in violation of those statutes after she had made reports regarding the improper use of federal grant funds associated with county programs.”
Walker v. Oregon Travel Info. Council, 484 P.3d 1035 (Or. 2021). “” Unless otherwise stated, further references to ORS 659A.203 in this opinion are to the 2015 version.”
Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 120 P.3d 1235 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Plaintiff brought this action against his employer, the Oregon Lottery (Lottery), and several of its managers, alleging violations of the Oregon Public Employee Whistle-blower Law (Whistleblower Law), ORS 659A.203 to 659A.236, and the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USC section…”
Reyna v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2025).
Seater v. Klamath Irrigation Dist., 560 P.3d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(1)(b)(A) — 6 cases
Vaughn v. Marion Cnty., 469 P.3d 231 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Cuddigan-Placito v. SAIF, 335 Or. App. 663 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Cuddigan-Placito v. SAIF, 335 Or. App. 663 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
McClusky v. City of North Bend (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
White v. Taylor (D. Or. 2021).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(1)(b)(B) — 2 cases
Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 120 P.3d 1235 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Plaintiff brought this action against his employer, the Oregon Lottery (Lottery), and several of its managers, alleging violations of the Oregon Public Employee Whistle-blower Law (Whistleblower Law), ORS 659A.203 to 659A.236, and the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USC section…”
Bass (D. Or. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(1)(c) — 1 case
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). “); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(1)(c) (2003). [12] See n.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(1)(d) — 2 cases
McClusky v. City of North Bend (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Miller v. Watson (D. Or. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(3) — 2 cases
Burley v. Clackamas Cnty., 446 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “199 and ORS 659A.203, alleging that the county unlawfully retaliated against her in violation of those statutes after she had made reports regarding the improper use of federal grant funds associated with county programs.”
Walker v. Oregon Travel Info. Council, 484 P.3d 1035 (Or. 2021). “” Unless otherwise stated, further references to ORS 659A.203 in this opinion are to the 2015 version.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(b) — 1 case
Koller v. Schmaing, 296 P.3d 529 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(l)(b) — 5 cases
Harper v. Mt. Hood Cmty. Coll., 388 P.3d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing her claims against defendant, Mount Hood Community College (MHCC), based on the Oregon Public Employee Whistle-blower Law, ORS 659A.203. 1 Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she was discharged in retaliation for reporting…”
Lindsey v. Clatskanie People's Util. Dist., 140 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (D. Or. 2015). “under ORS § 659A.203 and ORS § 659A.199 ORS § 659A.”
Huber v. Oregon Dep't of Educ., 230 P.3d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “230 for initiating a civil proceeding; (3) his claim pursuant to ORS 659A.203 for “whistleblowing” — that is, for disclosing information regarding, among other things, violations of state and federal law; and (4) his claim for a common-law wrongful discharge.”
Sharer v. Oregon, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Or. 2007).
McGuire v. Jackson Educ. Serv. Dist., 129 P.3d 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(l)(b)(A) — 7 cases
Folz v. State ex rel. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 404 P.3d 1036 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “199, ORS 659A.203, 1 and ORS 659A.230. 2 Plaintiff claimed that defendants engaged in a series of retaliatory employment actions against her for reporting possible violations of disability discrimination laws in the course of her employment with the Oregon Department of…”
Hall v. State, 366 P.3d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “199, 3 ORS 659A.203, 4 and ORS 659A.230, 5 common-law wrongful discharge, and a claim for violation of due process rights under 42 USC section 1983 .”
Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 120 P.3d 1235 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Plaintiff brought this action against his employer, the Oregon Lottery (Lottery), and several of its managers, alleging violations of the Oregon Public Employee Whistle-blower Law (Whistleblower Law), ORS 659A.203 to 659A.236, and the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USC section…”
Reynolds v. City of Eugene, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (D. Or. 2013).
Hall v. Douglas Cnty., 203 P.3d 360 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(l)(b)(B) — 3 cases
Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 120 P.3d 1235 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Plaintiff brought this action against his employer, the Oregon Lottery (Lottery), and several of its managers, alleging violations of the Oregon Public Employee Whistle-blower Law (Whistleblower Law), ORS 659A.203 to 659A.236, and the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USC section…”
Rabkin v. Oregon Health Sciences Univ., 350 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2003).
Hall v. Douglas Cnty., 203 P.3d 360 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(l)(c) — 2 cases
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). “); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203(1)(c) (2003). [12] See n.”
Huber v. Oregon Dep't of Educ., 230 P.3d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “230 for initiating a civil proceeding; (3) his claim pursuant to ORS 659A.203 for “whistleblowing” — that is, for disclosing information regarding, among other things, violations of state and federal law; and (4) his claim for a common-law wrongful discharge.”
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.