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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.233 (2026)

Discrimination for reporting certain violations or testifying at unemployment compensation hearing prohibited

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

      659A.233 Discrimination for reporting certain violations or testifying at unemployment compensation hearing prohibited. 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 possible violations of ORS chapter 441 or of ORS 443.400 to 443.455 or has testified in good faith at an unemployment compensation hearing or other hearing conducted pursuant to ORS chapter 657. [Formerly 659.035]

 

(Legislative Testimony)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: Hall v. State, 366 P.3d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hall v. State, 366 P.3d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “230, good faith relates to what the employee knew at the time of the report, not to what might be shown later to be reasonable with the benefit of hindsight.”
Love v. Polk Cnty. Fire Dist., 149 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “035 (now ORS 659A.233) is inapposite in determining whether a good faith belief, even if objectively unreasonable, is sufficient to sustain the present common-law “whistleblower”-based wrongful discharge claim.”
Elk Creek Mgmt. Co. v. Gilbert, 303 P.3d 929 (Or. 2013). “230(1) (same for reporting crimes); ORS 659A.233 (same for reporting violations of certain state statutes); ORS 659A.”
Neff v. Jackson Cnty., 67 P.3d 977 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “1 In 2001, as part of a comprehensive overhaul of ORS chapter 659, the legislature created a new chapter 659A, and those statutes were renumbered as ORS 659A.233 and ORS 659A.230, respectively.”
Reddy v. Cascade Gen., Inc., 206 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “035 (1985), renumbered as ORS 659A.233 (2001), a nursing home employee allegedly discharged for insisting that the employer comply with Oregon laws could recover under a common-law wrongful discharge claim.”
Cuddigan-Placito v. SAIF, 560 P.3d 715 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “199 and ORS 659A.233 with the objective reasonableness standard in ORS 659A.”
Cuddigan-Placito v. SAIF, 335 Or. App. 663 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “199 and ORS 659A.233 with the objective reasonableness standard in ORS 659A.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.233(1): 1 case
Love v. Polk Cnty. Fire Dist., 149 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “035 (now ORS 659A.233) is inapposite in determining whether a good faith belief, even if objectively unreasonable, is sufficient to sustain the present common-law “whistleblower”-based wrongful discharge 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.