659A.875 Time
limitations. (1)
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section:
(a) A civil
action under ORS 659A.885 alleging an unlawful employment practice other than a
violation of ORS 243.323, 659A.030, 659A.082, 659A.112 or 659A.370 must be
commenced within one year after the occurrence of the unlawful employment
practice unless a complaint has been timely filed under ORS 659A.820.
(b) A civil
action under ORS 659A.885 alleging a violation of ORS 243.323, 659A.030,
659A.082, 659A.112 or 659A.370 must be commenced not later than five years
after the occurrence of the alleged violation.
(2) A person who
has filed a complaint under ORS 659A.820 must commence a civil action under ORS
659A.885 within the applicable time period after a notice is mailed to the
complainant under ORS 659A.880. This subsection does not apply to a complainant
alleging an unlawful practice under ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or discrimination
under federal housing law.
(3) A civil
action alleging a violation of ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 must be commenced not
later than two years after the occurrence or the termination of the unlawful
practice, or within two years after the breach of any settlement agreement
entered into under ORS 659A.840, whichever occurs last. The two-year period
shall not include any time during which an administrative proceeding was
pending with respect to the unlawful practice.
(4) A civil
action under ORS 659A.885 alleging an unlawful practice in violation of ORS
659A.403 or 659A.406 must be commenced within one year of the occurrence of the
unlawful practice.
(5) The notice of
claim required under ORS 30.275 must be given in any civil action under ORS
659A.885 against a public body, as defined in ORS 30.260, or any officer,
employee or agent of a public body as defined in ORS 30.260.
(6)
Notwithstanding ORS 30.275 (9):
(a) A civil
action under ORS 659A.885 against a public body, as defined in ORS 30.260, or
any officer, employee or agent of a public body as defined in ORS 30.260, based
on an unlawful employment practice other than a violation of ORS 243.323,
659A.030, 659A.082, 659A.112 or 659A.370 must be commenced within one year
after the occurrence of the unlawful employment practice unless a complaint has
been timely filed under ORS 659A.820.
(b) A civil
action under ORS 659A.885 alleging a violation of ORS 659A.030, 659A.082,
659A.112 or 659A.370 must be commenced not later than five years after the
occurrence of the alleged violation unless a complaint has been timely filed
under ORS 659A.820.
(c) A civil
action under ORS 659A.885 against a public body, as defined in ORS 30.260, or
any officer, employee or agent of a public body as defined in ORS 30.260,
alleging a violation of ORS 243.323, 659A.030, 659A.082 or 659A.112 must be
commenced not later than five years after the occurrence of the alleged
violation unless a complaint has been timely filed under ORS 659A.820.
(7) For the
purpose of time limitations, a compensation practice that is unlawful under ORS
652.220 occurs each time compensation is paid under a discriminatory
compensation decision or other practice.
(8)
Notwithstanding ORS 30.275 (2)(b), notice of claim against a public body under
ORS 652.220 or 659A.355 must be given within 300 days of discovery of the
alleged loss or injury. [2001 c.621 §13; 2005 c.452 §1; 2008 c.36 §14; 2017
c.197 §8; 2019 c.343 §6; 2019 c.463 §6a; 2025 c.379 §6]
Note: See note under 659A.830.
Notes of Decisions
Daniel v. Oregon Health & Sciences Univ., 262 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (D. Or. 2017).
· cites it 8× “Statute of Limitations ORS 659A.875 sets forth the time limitations for commencing a civil action that alleges an unlawful employment practice.”
Sharer v. Oregon, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Or. 2007).
· cites it 11× “Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.875, however, requires: (1) a civil action .”
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011).
· cites it 3× “The OTCA provides that notice of a claim must be given to a public body “within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury.” Or.”
Just. v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (D. Or. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.875(1). Here, plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is fatal to his federal and state race/national origin discrimination claims, especially given that his brief is wholly silent as to this issue.”
Hatkoff v. Portland Adventist Med. Ctr., 287 P.3d 1113 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” In that regard, plaintiff refers particularly to the one-year statute of limitation for age discrimination claims pursuant to ORS 659A.875. That argument fails for one of several reasons.”
United States ex rel. Berglund v. Boeing Co., 835 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Or. 2011).
· cites it 2× “According to Boeing, application of either limitations period excludes as time-barred most of Berglund’s allegations in support of his retaliation claim, which was filed on May 17, 2004.”
Medina v. State, 377 P.3d 626 (Wasco Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“Plaintiff first challenged defendants’ timeliness argument, contending that his race discrimination and retaliation *585 claims were timely because they fell within the statute of limitations prescribed by ORS 659A.875 and because, under the Lilly Ledbetter Act, 42 USC §…”
Preble v. Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 287, 447 P.3d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“135 applies to actions for damages from construction, alteration, or repair of improvement to real property; and ORS 659A.875 applies to actions for unlawful employment practices.”
Rinallo v. CAPSA Solutions, LLC, 222 F. Supp. 3d 927 (D. Or. 2016).
“Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.875(2) provides a claimant who has filed a BOLI complaint “must commence a civil action under ORS 659A.”
Benz v. West Linn Paper Co., 803 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Or. 2011).
“ORS 659A.875, 659A.885 (incorporating one-year limitation for claims brought under ORS 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(1) — 15 cases
Daniel v. Oregon Health & Sciences Univ., 262 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (D. Or. 2017).
“Statute of Limitations ORS 659A.875 sets forth the time limitations for commencing a civil action that alleges an unlawful employment practice.”
Just. v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (D. Or. 2015).
“” Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.875(1). Here, plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is fatal to his federal and state race/national origin discrimination claims, especially given that his brief is wholly silent as to this issue.”
Shepard v. City of Portland, 829 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D. Or. 2011).
“The OTCA provides that notice of a claim must be given to a public body “within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury.” Or.”
United States ex rel. Berglund v. Boeing Co., 835 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Or. 2011).
“According to Boeing, application of either limitations period excludes as time-barred most of Berglund’s allegations in support of his retaliation claim, which was filed on May 17, 2004.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(1)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(1)(a) — 5 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(1)(b) — 7 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(2) — 17 cases
Sharer v. Oregon, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Or. 2007).
“Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.875, however, requires: (1) a civil action .”
Rinallo v. CAPSA Solutions, LLC, 222 F. Supp. 3d 927 (D. Or. 2016).
“Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.875(2) provides a claimant who has filed a BOLI complaint “must commence a civil action under ORS 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(3) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(4) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(6) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(6)(b) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(6)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.875(a) — 2 cases
Sharer v. Oregon, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Or. 2007).
“Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.875, however, requires: (1) a 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.