659A.355
Discrimination based on wage inquiry or wage complaint; exception. (1) It is an unlawful employment
practice for an employer to discharge, demote or suspend, or to discriminate or
retaliate against, an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or other
terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the employee has:
(a) Inquired
about, discussed or disclosed in any manner the wages of the employee or of
another employee; or
(b) Made a
charge, filed a complaint or instituted, or caused to be instituted, an
investigation, proceeding, hearing or action based on the disclosure of wage
information by the employee.
(2) This section
does not apply to an employee who has access to wage information of employees
as part of the job functions of the employee’s position and discloses the wages
of those employees to individuals not authorized access to the information,
unless the disclosure is in response to a charge or complaint or is in
furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing or action, including but
not limited to an investigation conducted by the employer. [2015 c.307 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp. (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 23× “The issue presented in this case is whether ORS 659A.355 protects an employee from adverse employment actions by their employer when the employee requests a raise.”
O'Donnell v. Ameresco, Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
· cites it 9× “That is, the purpose of ORS § 659A.355 is preventing discrimination in the form of pay inequity by protecting employees who discuss their wages.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.355(1) — 1 case
Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp. (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“The issue presented in this case is whether ORS 659A.355 protects an employee from adverse employment actions by their employer when the employee requests a raise.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.355(1)(a) — 2 cases
O'Donnell v. Ameresco, Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
“That is, the purpose of ORS § 659A.355 is preventing discrimination in the form of pay inequity by protecting employees who discuss their wages.”
Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp. (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“The issue presented in this case is whether ORS 659A.355 protects an employee from adverse employment actions by their employer when the employee requests a raise.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.355(2) — 1 case
Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp. (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“The issue presented in this case is whether ORS 659A.355 protects an employee from adverse employment actions by their employer when the employee requests a raise.”
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.