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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.870 (2026)

Election of remedies

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

      659A.870 Election of remedies. (1) Except as provided in this section, the filing of a civil action by a person in circuit court pursuant to ORS 659A.885, or in federal district court under applicable federal law, waives the right of the person to file a complaint with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries under ORS 659A.820 with respect to the matters alleged in the civil action.

      (2) The filing of a complaint under ORS 659A.820 is not a condition precedent to the filing of any civil action.

      (3) If a person files a civil action alleging an unlawful practice under ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or discrimination under federal housing law, the filing does not constitute an election of remedies or a waiver of the right of the person to file a complaint with the commissioner under ORS 659A.820, but the commissioner shall dismiss the complaint upon the commencement of a trial in the civil action.

      (4) If a person files a complaint under ORS 659A.820 alleging a violation of ORS 652.220 and the commissioner issues a final order in favor of the complainant, the commissioner shall require the employer to pay an award of back pay for the lesser of:

      (a) The two-year period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint plus the period of time commencing with the date on which the complaint is filed and ending on the date on which the commissioner issued the order; or

      (b) The period of time the complainant was subject to an unlawful wage differential by the employer plus the period of time commencing with the date on which the complaint is filed and ending on the date on which the commissioner issued the order.

      (5)(a) The filing of a complaint under ORS 659A.820 by a person alleging an unlawful practice under ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or discrimination under federal housing law does not constitute an election of remedies or a waiver of the right of the person to file a civil action with respect to the same matters, but a civil action may not be filed after a hearing officer has commenced a hearing on the record under this chapter with respect to the allegations of the complaint.

      (b) A respondent or complainant named in a complaint filed under ORS 659A.820 or 659A.825 alleging an unlawful practice under ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or discrimination under federal housing law may elect to have the matter heard in circuit court under ORS 659A.885. The election must be made in writing and received by the commissioner within 20 days after service of formal charges under ORS 659A.845. If the respondent or the complainant makes the election, the commissioner shall pursue the matter in court on behalf of the complainant at no cost to the complainant.

      (c) If the Attorney General or the commissioner files a complaint under ORS 659A.825, the Attorney General or the commissioner may elect to have the matter heard in circuit court under ORS 659A.885.

      (d) If the respondent, the complainant, the Attorney General or the commissioner do not elect to have the matter heard in circuit court, the commissioner may conduct a hearing on the formal charges under ORS 659A.850.

      (6) A person who has filed a complaint under ORS 659A.820 need not receive a notice under ORS 659A.880 before commencing a civil action that is based on the same matters alleged in the complaint filed with the commissioner.

      (7) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (5) of this section, this section does not limit or alter in any way the authority or power of the commissioner, or limit or alter in any way any of the rights of an individual complainant, until and unless the complainant commences a civil action. [2001 c.621 §12; 2007 c.903 §12; 2008 c.36 §13; 2015 c.609 §§2,5; 2017 c.197 §§6,7; 2025 c.379 §5]

 

      Note: See note under 659A.830.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 186 P.3d 300 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 186 P.3d 300 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “” Specifically, employer argues that, because an employee can commence a civil action under ORS 659A.870 (which entitles an employer to a jury trial) or file an administrative complaint with BOLI (which does not include the right to a jury trial), the complainant can…”
Hanson v. State of Oregon, Legislative Assembly (D. Or. 2024). · cites it 2× “Further, the Legislature’s argument contravenes the plain terms of ORS § 659A.870(2), which expressly provides that the filing of a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) “is not a condition precedent to the filing of any civil action.”
Jewell v. Legacy Health (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 2× “at 4); see also ORS § 659A.870 (“The filing of a complaint under ORS 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.870(2) — 1 case
Hanson v. State of Oregon, Legislative Assembly (D. Or. 2024). “Further, the Legislature’s argument contravenes the plain terms of ORS § 659A.870(2), which expressly provides that the filing of a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) “is not a condition precedent to the filing of any civil action.”
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.