Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885

Civil action

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

      659A.885 Civil action. (1) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful practice specified in subsection (2) of this section may file a civil action in circuit court. In any action under this subsection, the court may order injunctive relief and any other equitable relief that may be appropriate, including but not limited to reinstatement or the hiring of employees with or without back pay. A court may order back pay in an action under this subsection only for the two-year period immediately preceding the filing of a complaint under ORS 659A.820 with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, or if a complaint was not filed before the action was commenced, the two-year period immediately preceding the filing of the action. In any action under this subsection, the court may allow the prevailing party costs and reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal. Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section:

      (a) The judge shall determine the facts in an action under this subsection; and

      (b) Upon any appeal of a judgment in an action under this subsection, the appellate court shall review the judgment pursuant to the standard established by ORS 19.415 (3).

      (2) An action may be brought under subsection (1) of this section alleging a violation of:

      (a) ORS 10.090, 10.092, 25.337, 25.424, 171.120, 243.323, 408.230, 408.237 (2), 468B.519, 475C.285, 476.574, 652.020, 652.220, 652.355, 653.060, 653.263, 653.265, 653.547, 653.549, 653.601 to 653.661, 657B.060, 657B.070, 659.852, 659A.030, 659A.040, 659A.043, 659A.046, 659A.063, 659A.069, 659A.082, 659A.088, 659A.103 to 659A.145, 659A.147, 659A.150 to 659A.186, 659A.194, 659A.199, 659A.203, 659A.218, 659A.228, 659A.230, 659A.233, 659A.236, 659A.250 to 659A.262, 659A.277, 659A.290, 659A.300, 659A.306, 659A.309, 659A.315, 659A.318, 659A.320, 659A.343, 659A.355, 659A.357, 659A.370 or 659A.421; or

      (b) ORS 653.470, except an action may not be brought for a claim relating to ORS 653.450.

      (3) In any action under subsection (1) of this section alleging a violation of ORS 25.337, 25.424, 243.323, 652.220, 652.355, 653.547, 653.549, 657B.060, 657B.070, 659.852, 659A.030, 659A.040, 659A.043, 659A.046, 659A.069, 659A.082, 659A.103 to 659A.145, 659A.199, 659A.203, 659A.228, 659A.230, 659A.250 to 659A.262, 659A.290, 659A.318, 659A.343, 659A.355, 659A.357, 659A.370 or 659A.421:

      (a) The court may award, in addition to the relief authorized under subsection (1) of this section, compensatory damages or $200, whichever is greater, and punitive damages;

      (b) At the request of any party, the action shall be tried to a jury;

      (c) Upon appeal of any judgment finding a violation, the appellate court shall review the judgment pursuant to the standard established by ORS 19.415 (1); and

      (d) Any attorney fee agreement shall be subject to approval by the court.

      (4) Notwithstanding ORS 31.730, in an action under subsection (1) of this section alleging a violation of ORS 652.220, the court may award punitive damages if:

      (a) It is proved by clear and convincing evidence that an employer has engaged in fraud, acted with malice or acted with willful and wanton misconduct; or

      (b) An employer was previously adjudicated in a proceeding under this section or under ORS 659A.850 for a violation of ORS 652.220.

      (5) In any action under subsection (1) of this section alleging a violation of ORS 653.060 or 659A.147, the court may award, in addition to the relief authorized under subsection (1) of this section, compensatory damages or $200, whichever is greater.

      (6) In any action under subsection (1) of this section alleging a violation of ORS 171.120, 476.574 or 659A.218, the court may award, in addition to the relief authorized under subsection (1) of this section, compensatory damages or $250, whichever is greater.

      (7) In any action under subsection (1) of this section alleging a violation of ORS 10.090 or 10.092, the court may award, in addition to the relief authorized under subsection (1) of this section, a civil penalty in the amount of $720.

      (8) Any individual against whom any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status or age, if the individual is 18 years of age or older, has been made by any place of public accommodation, as defined in ORS 659A.400, by any employee or person acting on behalf of the place or by any person aiding or abetting the place or person in violation of ORS 659A.406 may bring an action against the operator or manager of the place, the employee or person acting on behalf of the place or the aider or abettor of the place or person. Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, in an action under this subsection:

      (a) The court may award, in addition to the relief authorized under subsection (1) of this section, compensatory and punitive damages;

      (b) The operator or manager of the place of public accommodation, the employee or person acting on behalf of the place, and any aider or abettor shall be jointly and severally liable for all damages awarded in the action;

      (c) At the request of any party, the action shall be tried to a jury;

      (d) The court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff;

      (e) The court may award reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees incurred by a defendant who prevails only if the court determines that the plaintiff had no objectively reasonable basis for asserting a claim or no reasonable basis for appealing an adverse decision of a trial court; and

      (f) Upon any appeal of a judgment under this subsection, the appellate court shall review the judgment pursuant to the standard established by ORS 19.415 (1).

      (9) When the commissioner or the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the rights protected by ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or federal housing law, or that a group of persons has been denied any of the rights protected by ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or federal housing law, the commissioner or the Attorney General may file a civil action on behalf of the aggrieved persons in the same manner as a person or group of persons may file a civil action under this section. In a civil action filed under this subsection, the court may assess against the respondent, in addition to the relief authorized under subsections (1) and (3) of this section, a civil penalty:

      (a) In an amount not exceeding $50,000 for a first violation; and

      (b) In an amount not exceeding $100,000 for any subsequent violation.

      (10) In any action under subsection (1) of this section alleging a violation of ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or alleging discrimination under federal housing law, when the commissioner is pursuing the action on behalf of an aggrieved complainant, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees to the commissioner if the commissioner prevails in the action. The court may award reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees incurred by a defendant that prevails in the action if the court determines that the commissioner had no objectively reasonable basis for asserting the claim or for appealing an adverse decision of the trial court.

      (11) In an action under subsection (1) or (9) of this section alleging a violation of ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or discrimination under federal housing law:

      (a) “Aggrieved person” includes a person who believes that the person:

      (A) Has been injured by an unlawful practice or discriminatory housing practice; or

      (B) Will be injured by an unlawful practice or discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur.

      (b) An aggrieved person in regard to issues to be determined in an action may intervene as of right in the action. The Attorney General may intervene in the action if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance. The court may allow an intervenor prevailing party costs and reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal. [2001 c.621 §15; 2003 c.521 §5; 2003 c.522 §1; 2003 c.572 §21; 2003 c.603 §7; 2003 c.637 §18; 2005 c.199 §1; 2007 c.100 §12; 2007 c.180 §8; 2007 c.278 §3; 2007 c.280 §1; 2007 c.525 §4; 2007 c.903 §13; 2008 c.36 §16; 2009 c.378 §4; 2009 c.478 §3; 2009 c.524 §3; 2010 c.102 §3; 2011 c.118 §4; 2011 c.484 §3; 2013 c.519 §8; 2015 c.307 §3; 2015 c.434 §4; 2015 c.457 §5; 2015 c.537 §18; 2015 c.614 §166; 2016 c.73 §5; 2017 c.197 §§9,10; 2017 c.685 §12; 2017 c.691 §13; 2019 c.139 §§5,6; 2019 c.343 §§7,8; 2019 c.463 §§7,8; 2019 c.700 §§57,58; 2019 c.701 §§12,13; 2021 c.367 §§44,45,46; 2022 c.99 §§7,8,9; 2023 c.9 §49]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 95 cases (50 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Chase v. Vernam
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chase v. Vernam (2005) orctapp · cites it 24× “425(4)(a) exposes the appealing party to the same risk. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to attorney fees to the same extent that plaintiff would have been entitled attorney fees under ORS 659A.”
Summerfield v. OLCC (2020) or · cites it 9× “885 authorizes a person to bring a civil action if the person is aggrieved by certain unlawful employ- ment practices, including violations of ORS 659A.046. It provides, in pertinent part: “(1) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlaw- ful practice specified in subsection…”
Hamlin v. HAMPTON LUMBER MILLS, INC. (2011) or · cites it 6× “" In other words, if a defendant inflicts more than minimal harm, it is likely that a plaintiff will recover substantial compensatory damages and that a single-digit multiplier of that award will produce punitive damages greater than or equal to those produced by a higher…”
Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A. (2019) orctapp · cites it 4× “That is all that is required for plaintiff to have standing under ORS 659A.885. Whether the cooperative is a place of public accommodation and whether plaintiff was actually aggrieved by the violation of a substantive right that the legislature had conferred upon her are issues…”
Yeager v. Providence Health System Oregon (2004) orctapp · cites it 3× “ORS 659A.885(1) provides, in part, that “[a]ny individual claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful practice specified in subsection (2) of this section may file a civil action in circuit court.”
Daniel v. Oregon Health & Sciences University (2017) ord · cites it 3× “5 That statute provides in relevant part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a civil action under ORS 659A.885 [Civil Action] alleging an unlawful employment practice must be commenced within one year after the occurrence of the unlawful employment…”
Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc. (2009) orctapp · cites it 5× “Plaintiff, meanwhile, petitioned for attorney fees and costs, arguing that he was entitled to fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885(1). ORS 659A.885(1) provides that, in employment discrimination actions such as the one plaintiff successfully brought here, “the court may allow…”
Bush v. City of Prineville (A165637) (2020) orctapp · cites it 3× “” 1 Plaintiff’s complaint asserted a right to attorney fees “pursuant to the pro- visions of ORS 659A.885; ORS 20.107; ORS 20.115; ORS 20.”
United States ex rel. Berglund v. Boeing Co. (2011) ord · cites it 4× “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.”
Mantia v. Hanson (2003) orctapp · cites it 4× “121 (1999) — and does not refer to ORS 659A.885. Although ORS *42 654.062(5) has always referred to other provisions of ORS chapter 659 (now codified in ORS chapter 659A), those references pertain solely to “the procedures, policies and remedies” for proceedings before the…”
Reddy v. CASCADE GENERAL, INC. (2009) orctapp · cites it 4× “In addition, ORS 659A.885 includes greatly expanded remedies for workers who have been subject to unlawful discrimination in violation of ORS 659A.”
Neighorn v. Quest Health Care (2012) ord · cites it 2× “PUNITIVE DAMAGES Neighorn prays for punitive damages, as available, for each of his claims, and Rotech moves for summary judgment on that request.”
Show all 95 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(1) — 41 cases
Chase v. Vernam (2005) orctapp “425(4)(a) exposes the appealing party to the same risk. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to attorney fees to the same extent that plaintiff would have been entitled attorney fees under ORS 659A.”
Summerfield v. OLCC (2020) or “885 authorizes a person to bring a civil action if the person is aggrieved by certain unlawful employ- ment practices, including violations of ORS 659A.046. It provides, in pertinent part: “(1) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlaw- ful practice specified in subsection…”
Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc. (2009) orctapp “Plaintiff, meanwhile, petitioned for attorney fees and costs, arguing that he was entitled to fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885(1). ORS 659A.885(1) provides that, in employment discrimination actions such as the one plaintiff successfully brought here, “the court may allow…”
Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A. (2019) orctapp “That is all that is required for plaintiff to have standing under ORS 659A.885. Whether the cooperative is a place of public accommodation and whether plaintiff was actually aggrieved by the violation of a substantive right that the legislature had conferred upon her are issues…”
Yeager v. Providence Health System Oregon (2004) orctapp “ORS 659A.885(1) provides, in part, that “[a]ny individual claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful practice specified in subsection (2) of this section may file a civil action in circuit court.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(1)(a) — 2 cases
Karthauser v. Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District (2023) ord
Schultz v. NW Permanente P.C. (2022) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(1)(b) — 1 case
Wilmoth v. Ann Sacks Tile and Stone, Inc. (2008) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(11)(a) — 1 case
Tami Huston; Justin Huston v. Willamette Valley Rentals, LLC; Nick Sharifi; Roya Sharifi (2026) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(2) — 5 cases
United States ex rel. Berglund v. Boeing Co. (2011) ord “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.”
Yeager v. Providence Health System Oregon (2004) orctapp “ORS 659A.885(1) provides, in part, that “[a]ny individual claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful practice specified in subsection (2) of this section may file a civil action in circuit court.”
Kemp v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. (2013) orctapp
Karthauser v. Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District (2023) ord
Wilson v. Safeway, Inc. (2025) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(2)(a) — 2 cases
Karthauser v. Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District (2023) ord
Chapman v. City of Coos Bay Oregon (2024) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(2)(b) — 1 case
Wilson v. Safeway, Inc. (2025) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(3) — 6 cases
Hamlin v. HAMPTON LUMBER MILLS, INC. (2011) or “" In other words, if a defendant inflicts more than minimal harm, it is likely that a plaintiff will recover substantial compensatory damages and that a single-digit multiplier of that award will produce punitive damages greater than or equal to those produced by a higher…”
Kemp v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. (2013) orctapp
Stillwell v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (2021) ord
Granas v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (2025) ord
Bassett v. Truveta, Inc. (2025) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(3)(a) — 8 cases
Neighorn v. Quest Health Care (2012) ord “PUNITIVE DAMAGES Neighorn prays for punitive damages, as available, for each of his claims, and Rotech moves for summary judgment on that request.”
Tammie Ackelson v. Manley Toy Direct, L.L.C. And Toy Network, L.L.C. v. Manley Toy Direct, L.L.C.. And Toy Network, L.L. (2013) iowa
Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council (2021) or
Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc. (2008) orctapp
Reddy v. CASCADE GENERAL, INC. (2009) orctapp “In addition, ORS 659A.885 includes greatly expanded remedies for workers who have been subject to unlawful discrimination in violation of ORS 659A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(3)(b) — 2 cases
Reddy v. CASCADE GENERAL, INC. (2009) orctapp “In addition, ORS 659A.885 includes greatly expanded remedies for workers who have been subject to unlawful discrimination in violation of ORS 659A.”
Karthauser v. Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District (2023) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(8) — 2 cases
Farhoud v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (2024) ord
Strickland v. Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC (2021) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(8)(a) — 1 case
Farhoud v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (2024) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(8)(b) — 1 case
Farhoud v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (2024) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(8)(d) — 1 case
Logan v. Walmart Inc. (2020) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(8)(e) — 1 case
Abualya v. All Stop Pipes and Tobacco LLC (2025) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(l)(a) — 1 case
Christianson v. State of Oregon (2010) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(l)(b) — 1 case
Christianson v. State of Oregon (2010) orctapp
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.