Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.409 (2026)

Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited; age exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

659A.409 Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited; age exceptions. Except as provided by laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors, the use of marijuana items, as defined in ORS 475C.009, by persons under 21 years of age, the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold, and except for special rates or services offered to persons 50 years of age or older, it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older. [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7; 2015 c.614 §28; 2021 c.367 §39]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2022 · leading case: Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 410 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 410 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 19× “" The order further concluded that the Kleins violated another of Oregon's public accommodations laws, ORS 659A.409, by communicating an intention to unlawfully discriminate in the future.”

Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 43 P.3d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “400 through ORS 659A.409. References to ORS 30.670 through ORS 30.”

Klein v. BOLI, 506 P.3d 1108 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 9× “138 Argued and resubmitted on remand from the United States Supreme Court January 9, 2020; reversed as to BOLI’s conclusion that the Kleins violated ORS 659A.409 and the related grant of injunctive relief, reversed and remanded as to damages, otherwise affirmed January 26, 2022…”

Blachana, LLC v. Oregon Bureau of Labor & Indus., 359 P.3d 574 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 14× “406, 4 and ORS 659A.409, 5 when Penner left two *809 voicemails for Cassandra Lynn, the founder of the T-Girls, in which he asked Lynn and the T-Girls not to come back to the P Club on Friday nights.”

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.