Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.215 (2026)
Remedies not exclusive
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
659A.215 Remedies not exclusive. The remedies provided for violations of ORS 659A.203 and 659A.218 under this chapter are in addition to any appeal proceeding available under ORS 240.560 for a state employee or under any comparable provisions for employees of political subdivisions. [Formerly 659.530]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 2002–2006 · leading case: Olsen v. Deschutes Cnty., 127 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Olsen v. Deschutes Cnty., 127 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “530 was renumbered as ORS 659A.215 in 2001. The 90-day statute of limitations was subsequently repealed.”
Dew v. City of Scappoose, 145 P.3d 198 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “530 (1999), renumbered as ORS 659A.215 (2001) and amended by Or Laws 2001, ch 621, § 45; (3) the city is liable for common-law wrongful discharge; (4) the city violated former ORS 659.”
Rabkin v. Oregon Health Sciences Univ., 350 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2003). “Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.215 (2001). . Or.Rev.”
Young v. State, 47 P.3d 926 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Statute was amended by Oregon Laws 2001, chapter 621, section 45, and renumbered as ORS 659A.215 (2001). We hereafter referred to it as former ORS 659.”
Shepherd v. City of Salem, 320 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (D. Or. 2004). “Prohibited conduct occurring before January 1, 2002 is subject to the 90-day limitations period provided by Or.”
Calkins v. Brown, 84 F. App'x 869 (9th Cir. 2003). “This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. . Coszalterv.”
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.