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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400 (2026)

Place of public accommodation defined

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

      659A.400 Place of public accommodation defined. (1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

      (a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

      (b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109, regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.

      (c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109, regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.

      (2) A place of public accommodation does not include:

      (a) A Department of Corrections institution as defined in ORS 421.005.

      (b) A state hospital as defined in ORS 162.135.

      (c) A youth correction facility as defined in ORS 420.005.

      (d) A local correction facility or lockup as defined in ORS 169.005.

      (e) An institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675; 2013 c.429 §1; 2013 c.530 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 511 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 511 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2022). · cites it 83× “” The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, concluding that defendant was not a place of public accommoda- tion as defined by ORS 659A.400. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which certified to the Oregon Supreme Court the following question: “Is a private con-…”
Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 410 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “675 (1953), renumbered as ORS 659A.400 (2001). Oregon's statute was thus similar in scope to Title II of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination "on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin" in three broad categories of public…”
Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A., 441 P.3d 699 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “2 Under that statute, "[i]t is an unlawful practice for any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement as defined in ORS 659A.400, or any person acting on behalf of such place, to make any distinction, discrimination or restriction because a customer or patron is an…”
Harrington v. Airbnb, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Or. 2018). · cites it 4× “" Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(1)(a) (emphasis added).”
Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 43 P.3d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “685 were renumbered in 2001 and are currently codified as ORS 659A.400 through ORS 659A.409. References to ORS 30.”
Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 340 P.3d 27 (Or. 2014). “403 (prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation); ORS 659A.400 (defining places of public accommodation for purposes of ORS 659A.”
Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 121 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “685 were renumbered as ORS 659A.400 to 659A.409 and amended in ways that are not relevant to this case.”
Human Rights Comm'n v. Benevolent & Prot. Order of Elks, 2003 VT 104 (Vt. 2003). “25 § 1401(l)(i) (West 1987); Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(2) (2001); R.I.”
Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp., 500 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “” ORS 659A.400(1)(c). Each of those statutes allows, or even requires, places of public accommodation to discriminate against young adults, notwithstanding the OPAA.”
Austin v. Walmart, Inc., 340 Or. App. 279 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “See ORS 659A.400 (defining a “place of public accommodation”).”
Parents for Privacy v. Dall. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D. Or. 2018). “") §§ 659A.400, 659A.885. Id. at ¶¶ 265-271 .”
Andrew Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 985 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “CORIZON HEALTH defined in ORS 659A.400, or any person acting on behalf of such place, to make any distinction, discrimination or restriction because a customer or patron is an individual with a disability.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(1) — 2 cases
Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 511 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2022). “” The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, concluding that defendant was not a place of public accommoda- tion as defined by ORS 659A.400. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which certified to the Oregon Supreme Court the following question: “Is a private con-…”
Getman v. Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. (D. Or. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(1)(a) — 6 cases
Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 511 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2022). “” The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, concluding that defendant was not a place of public accommoda- tion as defined by ORS 659A.400. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which certified to the Oregon Supreme Court the following question: “Is a private con-…”
Harrington v. Airbnb, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Or. 2018). “" Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(1)(a) (emphasis added).”
Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A., 441 P.3d 699 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “2 Under that statute, "[i]t is an unlawful practice for any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement as defined in ORS 659A.400, or any person acting on behalf of such place, to make any distinction, discrimination or restriction because a customer or patron is an…”
Brown (D. Or. 2026).
Fenimore v. Lane Cnty. Repub. Cent. Comm. (D. Or. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(1)(b) — 1 case
Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 511 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2022). “” The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, concluding that defendant was not a place of public accommoda- tion as defined by ORS 659A.400. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which certified to the Oregon Supreme Court the following question: “Is a private con-…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(1)(c) — 2 cases
Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp., 500 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “” ORS 659A.400(1)(c). Each of those statutes allows, or even requires, places of public accommodation to discriminate against young adults, notwithstanding the OPAA.”
Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 511 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2022). “” The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, concluding that defendant was not a place of public accommoda- tion as defined by ORS 659A.400. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which certified to the Oregon Supreme Court the following question: “Is a private con-…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(2) — 3 cases
Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 511 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2022). “” The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, concluding that defendant was not a place of public accommoda- tion as defined by ORS 659A.400. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which certified to the Oregon Supreme Court the following question: “Is a private con-…”
Human Rights Comm'n v. Benevolent & Prot. Order of Elks, 2003 VT 104 (Vt. 2003). “25 § 1401(l)(i) (West 1987); Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(2) (2001); R.I.”
Brown (D. Or. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(2)(a) — 1 case
Andrew Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 985 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2021). “CORIZON HEALTH defined in ORS 659A.400, or any person acting on behalf of such place, to make any distinction, discrimination or restriction because a customer or patron is an individual with a disability.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(2)(d) — 1 case
Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 511 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2022). “” The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, concluding that defendant was not a place of public accommoda- tion as defined by ORS 659A.400. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which certified to the Oregon Supreme Court the following question: “Is a private con-…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(2)(e) — 2 cases
Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc., 511 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2022). “” The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, concluding that defendant was not a place of public accommoda- tion as defined by ORS 659A.400. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which certified to the Oregon Supreme Court the following question: “Is a private con-…”
Harrington v. Airbnb, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Or. 2018). “" Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.400(1)(a) (emphasis added).”
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.