Oregon
Oregon At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 20, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 20, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Oregon is an at-will employment state, meaning employers can terminate workers for any reason or no reason, provided the reason is not illegal. Oregon courts have recognized this default rule for over a century, but the state also leads the nation in carving out meaningful exceptions that protect workers from the most egregious firings.
Is Oregon an at-will employment state?
Yes. Oregon follows the at-will employment rule, meaning either party can end the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, or for no stated reason at all. The employer does not have to give notice, severance, or a justification for the termination. This baseline rule applies to most private-sector employees in the state unless a statute, contract, or recognized common-law exception changes it. Oregon courts have consistently applied the at-will presumption while also being early and active in building exceptions that limit the employer's authority to fire workers for reasons that undermine broader public interests.
Exceptions to at-will employment in Oregon
Oregon recognizes two of the three common-law exceptions.

Public-policy exception (recognized). Oregon was among the very first states in the country to adopt the public-policy tort. In Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or. 210 (1975), the Oregon Supreme Court held that an employee fired for serving on jury duty stated a wrongful-discharge claim, because jury service serves a societal obligation that the law should protect. Three years later, in Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or. 597 (1978), the court allowed a wrongful-discharge claim by a worker fired for filing a workers' compensation claim, holding that a discharge for such a socially undesirable motive is actionable. The line is drawn at statutory rights tied to the employment relationship: in Campbell v. Ford Industries, 274 Or. 243 (1976), an employee fired after exercising a stockholder's statutory right to inspect corporate records had no claim, because that right protects private and proprietary interests. In Delaney v. Taco Time International, 297 Or. 10 (1984), the court put a manager fired for refusing to sign a false and arguably defamatory statement about a co-worker in the same societal-obligation category as Nees. Anti-retaliation protections that overlap with the public-policy tort are also codified throughout ORS chapter 659A, including protections for workers who report safety violations, assert wage claims, or exercise workers' compensation rights.
Implied-contract exception (recognized). In Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald Publishing Co., 281 Or. 651 (1978), the Oregon Supreme Court held that statements in an employee handbook could be found to be part of the contract of employment, so a worker discharged without the procedures the handbook promised was entitled to take that claim to a jury. The handbook in that case laid out a termination procedure that would take place "in most cases" (a letter detailing the problem, then a day sent home with pay, then termination), and the court expressly declined to express any view on the merits, holding only that the employee was entitled to go to trial.
Simpson v. Western Graphics Corp., 293 Or. 96 (1982), shows how limited that route can be. The employees there lost even though the parties agreed the handbook was contractual. The court noted the handbook was furnished to them after they were hired and that the evidence supported no inference that they accepted or continued in employment in reliance on its terms, so the meaning intended by the employer as drafter controlled. Under a just-cause provision, the court held, the employer needs only a good-faith determination of sufficient cause based on facts reasonably believed to be true; a court does not independently decide whether the misconduct actually happened.
Covenant of good faith and fair dealing (not recognized as a standalone exception). Oregon courts have declined to adopt a broad implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as an independent at-will exception. While the covenant applies in contract interpretation generally, it does not by itself prevent an employer from exercising its at-will prerogative. Employees cannot use it alone to second-guess a termination decision.
Is Oregon a right-to-work state?
Oregon is NOT a right-to-work state. The state has no right-to-work statute, and union-security agreements are permitted. That means an employer and a union can lawfully negotiate a contract requiring employees in the bargaining unit to join the union, pay union dues, or pay an equivalent agency fee as a condition of keeping their job.
Right-to-work is a concept that is often confused with at-will employment, but the two are entirely separate. Right-to-work concerns union membership and dues: in right-to-work states, no employee can be compelled to join or financially support a union. At-will concerns termination: whether an employer needs cause to fire someone. You can live in a right-to-work state and still have strong at-will exceptions, or vice versa. As of 2026, there are 26 right-to-work states. Michigan was the most recent to change, repealing its right-to-work law effective February 13, 2024 (2023 PA 8), dropping the national count from 27.
What at-will employment does not allow in Oregon
Even in an at-will state, certain firings are flatly illegal regardless of what the employer says. Federal law creates a floor that applies in every state, including Oregon.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits termination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) covers employees 40 and older. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects qualified workers with disabilities. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) bars discrimination based on genetic information. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires reasonable accommodation for pregnancy-related conditions. The Equal Pay Act prohibits pay disparities based on sex for substantially equal work.
Retaliation protections run alongside anti-discrimination law. An employer cannot fire a worker for reporting workplace discrimination or harassment, filing an EEOC charge, taking protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), exercising wage rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), engaging in concerted activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), reporting safety concerns under OSHA, or asserting rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
Oregon law adds a substantial state-level layer. ORS chapter 659A prohibits employment discrimination and retaliation on a wide range of additional grounds, including the state-specific anti-retaliation protections that overlap with the public-policy exception described above. Workers in Oregon therefore benefit from both a federal baseline and a state regime that is actively enforced by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI).
If you were fired in Oregon
At-will means your employer does not owe you an explanation. But the absence of a stated reason is not a legal defense for an illegal one. If you were fired in Oregon, consider the following steps.

First, document everything as soon as possible: save any emails, texts, handbook pages, performance reviews, or records of what was said at the time of termination. Memory fades and systems get wiped, so preserve what you can now.
Second, think through whether any of Oregon's exceptions could apply. Were you fired shortly after serving jury duty or reporting a workplace injury? Did your employer have a progressive-discipline policy it skipped? Either of those facts could support a wrongful-discharge claim under Oregon law. Did any supervisor make remarks about your age, race, disability, or family responsibilities before the termination? That could point to a federal or state discrimination claim.
Third, act quickly, because the default window is short. Under ORS 659A.820(2), a complaint must be filed with BOLI no later than one year after the alleged unlawful practice. The five-year deadline in ORS 659A.820(3) reaches only five listed provisions: ORS 243.323, ORS 659A.030 (discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status or age), ORS 659A.082 (service in a uniformed service), ORS 659A.112 (disability) and ORS 659A.370. Everything else keeps the one-year deadline, including several claims commonly raised after a retaliatory firing: workers' compensation retaliation under ORS 659A.040, whistleblower retaliation under ORS 659A.199, and retaliation for initiating or aiding a criminal or civil proceeding under ORS 659A.230. A charge with the EEOC typically must be filed within 300 days for federal claims in Oregon. Missing these windows can permanently bar your claim.
Given those windows, have an Oregon employment lawyer assess which theory and deadline fit your facts in a free case evaluation (attorney advertising).
This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Employment law varies by state and changes frequently, and it is not a substitute for advice about a specific termination. For guidance on your situation, consult a licensed employment attorney in Oregon.
Related: At-Will Employment by State | Whistleblower Protections
More Oregon Laws
- Oregon Employee Monitoring Laws
- Oregon Final Paycheck Laws
- Oregon Whistleblower Laws
- Oregon Workers Compensation Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Oregon an at-will state?
Yes. Oregon is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate workers at any time for any lawful reason or no reason, unless a statute, contract, or recognized common-law exception applies.
Can I be fired for no reason in Oregon?
Yes, in most cases. Because Oregon is an at-will state, your employer generally does not need to give you a reason. However, a firing for an illegal reason (discrimination, retaliation, or violation of a public policy) is still unlawful even if no reason is stated.
Can my employer fire me for filing a workers' comp claim or reporting illegal activity in Oregon?
No. Oregon's public-policy exception and ORS chapter 659A specifically prohibit retaliation for exercising workers' compensation rights or for reporting violations of law. A termination linked to either activity can support a wrongful-discharge claim.
Does an employee handbook protect me in Oregon?
Sometimes. Under Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald Publishing Co., 281 Or. 651 (1978), a jury could find that handbook statements, including a step-by-step termination procedure, were part of the employment contract; the court held only that the employee was entitled to go to trial and expressed no view on the merits. Simpson v. Western Graphics, 293 Or. 96 (1982) shows the limit: even under a just-cause handbook, an employer that makes a good-faith determination based on facts it reasonably believed to be true meets the standard, and the employees in that case lost. Review your handbook carefully and save a copy.
Is Oregon a right-to-work state?
No. Oregon has no right-to-work law. Union-security agreements requiring union membership or equivalent dues payments as a condition of employment are lawful in Oregon.
What is the difference between at-will employment and right-to-work?
At-will employment governs termination: whether an employer needs cause to fire someone. Right-to-work governs union membership: whether an employee can be required to join or pay dues to a union. They are separate legal concepts. Oregon is at-will but is not a right-to-work state.
What should I do if I think I was wrongfully fired in Oregon?
Document all records immediately, identify whether a public-policy exception, implied-contract exception, or anti-discrimination law applies, and consult an Oregon employment attorney as soon as possible. Watch the deadline: a BOLI complaint is due within one year under ORS 659A.820(2) unless the claim is one of the five provisions listed in ORS 659A.820(3) (ORS 243.323, 659A.030, 659A.082, 659A.112 and 659A.370), which get five years. Workers' compensation retaliation (ORS 659A.040) and whistleblower claims (ORS 659A.199) are in the one-year group. Federal EEOC charges generally must be filed within 300 days.
Updates
Corrected the description of Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald Publishing Co. to what the court actually held: a jury could find the handbook part of the employment contract, with no view expressed on the merits.
Corrected the Oregon case law on the public-policy and handbook exceptions (Brown v. Transcon Lines and Yartzoff, not Delaney and Simpson, are the controlling authorities) and replaced the five-year BOLI filing deadline with the correct one-year default under ORS 659A.820(2) and its five-section five-year carve-out.
Corrected the page's BOLI filing-deadline claim: most discrimination and retaliation claims (those under ORS 659A.030) actually have a five-year filing deadline for conduct on or after September 29, 2019 under the 2019 Workplace Fairness Act, not the one-year deadline the page previously stated as a blanket rule; the one-year deadline still applies to other, narrower ORS chapter 659A claims. Also replaced a dead BOLI citation link with the current live page.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A: Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions; Administrative and Civil Enforcement
§ 659A.030Discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status, age or expunged juvenile record prohibitedIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) It is an unlawful employment practice: (a) For an employer, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older, or because of the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status or age of any other person with whom the individual associates, or because of an individual’s juvenile record that has been expunged pursuant to ORS 419A.260 to 419A.271, to refuse to hire or employ the individual or to bar or discharge the individual from employment. However, discrimination is not an unlawful employment practice if the discrimination results from a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the employer’s business.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 267 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Portland State University Chapter of the American Ass'n of University Professors v. Portland State University (Oregon Supreme Court 2012, 352 Or. 697)“…t provision constituted unlawful 15 discrimination under ORS 659A.030(1)(f)5 and Title VII of the Civil Right…”
- Meyer v. State (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2018, 292 Or. App. 647)“…the Lottery subjected Meyer to retaliation in violation of ORS 659A.030 because she reported Niswender's sexual…”
- Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2021, 311 Or. App. 70)“…d abetting her employer in unlawful employ- ment practices. ORS 659A.030(1)(g). Defendants moved to dismiss, con…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Whistleblower Laws: Protections and How to Report, Wrongful Termination in Oregon (2026): Laws, Deadlines, How to File
§ 659A.040Discrimination against worker applying for or inquiring about workers’ compensation benefits prohibitedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
It is an unlawful employment practice for any person acting on behalf of an employer to discriminate against a worker with respect to hire or tenure or any term or condition of employment because the worker has: (1) Applied for or inquired about benefits under ORS chapter 656; (2) Invoked or utilized the procedures provided for in ORS chapter 656; or (3) Given testimony under the provisions of ORS chapter 656.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 39 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2009, 230 Or. App. 715)“…intiffs count concerning workers’ compensation retaliation. ORS 659A.040(1) provides, “It is an unlawful employm…”
- Williams v. FREIGHTLINER, LLC (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2004, 196 Or. App. 83)“…ef that defendant terminated her employment in violation of ORS 659A.040(1), which provides, in part, that “it i…”
- Schoen v. FREIGHTLINER LLC (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2008, 224 Or. App. 613)“…from a claim for workers’ compensation discrimination under ORS 659A.040 to 659A.046. Defendant contends that th…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Workers' Compensation Laws: Benefits, Deadlines, and Your Rights
§ 659A.199Prohibited conduct by employerIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation. (2) The remedies provided by this chapter are in addition to any common law remedy or other remedy that may be available to an employee for the conduct constituting a violation of this section. [2009 c.524 §2] (Disclosures by Public and Nonprofit Employees)
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 108 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Burley v. Clackamas Cnty. (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2019, 298 Or. App. 462)“…nt Clackamas County. The main question on appeal is whether ORS 659A.199, which makes it unlawful for an "employ…”
- Summerfield v. OLCC (Oregon Supreme Court 2020, 366 Or. 763)“…od faith report of what he believed was a violation of law, ORS 659A.199. The trial court granted defendant’s mo…”
- Ossanna v. Nike, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2018, 290 Or. App. 16)“…under ORS 654.062(5) ; (2) whistleblower retaliation under ORS 659A.199 ; (3) common law wrongful discharge; an…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights Under Split Consent
§ 659A.230Discrimination for initiating or aiding in criminal or civil proceedings prohibited; remedies not exclusiveIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported criminal activity by any person, has in good faith caused a complainant’s information or complaint to be filed against any person, has in good faith cooperated with any law enforcement agency conducting a criminal investigation, has in good faith brought a civil proceeding against an employer or has testified in good faith at a civil proceeding or criminal trial. (2) For the purposes of this section, “complainant’s information” and “complaint” have the meanings given those terms in ORS 131.005. (3) The remedies provided by this chapter are in addition to any common law remedy or other remedy that may be available to an employee for the conduct constituting a violation of this section. [Formerly 659.550]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 50 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Livingston v. METROPOLITAN PEDIATRICS, LLC (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2010, 234 Or. App. 137)“…and brought statutory claims of employment discrimination, ORS 659A.230 (whistleblowing), 1 and bl…”
- Huber v. Oregon Department of Education (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2010, 235 Or. App. 230)“…Amendment rights; (2) his claim for retaliation pursuant to ORS 659A.230 for initiating a civil proceeding; (3)…”
- Hall v. State (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2015, 274 Or. App. 445)“…stleblowing statutes, ORS 659A.199, 3 ORS 659A.203, 4 and ORS 659A.230, 5 common-law wrongful discharge, and…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 659A.082Discrimination against person for service in uniformed service prohibitedIn force
(1) As used in this section: (a) “Service” means the performance of duty on a voluntary or involuntary basis in a uniformed service that may involve active duty, active duty for training, initial active duty for training, inactive duty for training, full-time duty in the National Guard, funeral honors duty or an examination to determine fitness for service in a uniformed service. (b) “Uniformed service” means the Armed Forces of the United States, the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard when engaged in active duty for training, inactive duty training or full-time National Guard duty, the commissioned corps of the United States Public Health Service and any other category of persons designated by the President of the United States in time of war or national emergency. (2) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against a person because of the person’s service in a uniformed service by: (a) If the employer is a public body, denying a public officer or public employee the status or rights provided by ORS 408.240 to 408.280 and 408.290.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bush v. City of Prineville (A165637) (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2020, 301 Or. App. 674)“…er than the claims related to wrongful discrimination under ORS 659A.082. Because we conclude that the trial cou…”
- Bush v. City of Prineville (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2023, 325 Or. App. 37)“…mination against a uniformed service member in violation of ORS 659A.082. The first claim for relief also assert…”
- Elk Creek Management Co. v. Gilbert (Oregon Supreme Court 2013, 353 Or. 565)“…staff *** files a *** complaint” regarding unsafe care, and ORS 659A.082(2)(c) provides that “[i]t is an unlawfu…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 659A.112Employment discriminationIn force
(1) It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to hire, employ or promote, to bar or discharge from employment or to discriminate in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of disability. (2) An employer violates subsection (1) of this section if the employer does any of the following: (a) The employer limits, segregates or classifies a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of the applicant or employee because the applicant or employee has a disability. (b) The employer participates in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a qualified job applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by ORS 659A.112 to 659A.139, including but not limited to participating in a relationship with an employment or referral agency, a labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the employer, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 96 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES (Oregon Supreme Court 2010, 348 Or. 159)“…that employer had discriminated against him in violation of ORS 659A.112. That statute prohibits discrimination…”
- Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc. (Oregon Supreme Court 2006, 340 Or. 469)“…unlawful workplace discrimination against disabled persons, ORS 659A.112 to 659A.139. The issue before us is whe…”
- Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2009, 230 Or. App. 715)“…the duty to provide a reasonable accommodation arises under ORS 659A.112(2)(e) and that the duty is owed only to…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 659A.370Employer prohibited from entering into agreements that prevent employee from discussing certain unlawful conduct; exceptions; remediesIn force
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) or (4) of this subsection, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to enter into an agreement with a former, current or prospective employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, promotion, compensation or the receipt of benefits, that contains a nondisclosure provision, a nondisparagement provision or any other provision that has the purpose or effect of preventing the employee from disclosing or discussing conduct: (a)(A) That constitutes discrimination prohibited by ORS 659A.030, including conduct that constitutes sexual assault; or (B) That constitutes discrimination prohibited by ORS 659A.082 or 659A.112; and (b)(A) That occurred between employees or between an employer and an employee in the workplace or at a work-related event that is off the employment premises and coordinated by or through the employer; or (B) That occurred between an employer and an employee off the employment premises.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lowes v. Thompson (Oregon Supreme Court 2025, 374 Or. 23)“…ees from disclosing or discussing discriminatory con- duct. ORS 659A.370(1). Public and nonprofit employees enjo…”
- Khlafa v. Oregon Health and Science University (District Court, D. Oregon 2023)“…ith the employer as a term or condition of the agreement.” ORS § 659A.370(2). Plaintiff, however, has not sued u…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 659A.820ComplaintsIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) As used in this section, for purposes of a complaint alleging an unlawful practice under ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or discrimination under federal housing law, “person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful practice” includes, but is not limited to, a person who believes that the person: (a) Has been injured by an unlawful practice under ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or a discriminatory housing practice; or (b) Will be injured by an unlawful practice under ORS 659A.145 or 659A.421 or a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur. (2) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful practice may file with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries a verified written complaint that states the name and address of the person alleged to have committed the unlawful practice. The complaint must be signed by the complainant. The complaint must set forth the acts or omissions alleged to be an unlawful practice. The complainant may be required to set forth in the complaint such other information as the commissioner may require.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 26 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Portland State University Chapter of the American Ass'n of University Professors v. Portland State University (Oregon Supreme Court 2012, 352 Or. 697)“…to, filing a discrimination 11 complaint with BOLI. See ORS 659A.820 (regarding the filing of complaints wit…”
- Hatkoff v. Portland Adventist Medical Center (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2012, 252 Or. App. 210)“…mination complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries, ORS 659A.820, or in state court, ORS 659A.875.…”
- Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A. (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2019, 297 Or. App. 47)“…s right to file a formal complaint with BOLI is provided by ORS 659A.820(2), under which "[a]ny person claiming…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), Oregon Jury Duty Laws: Pay, Excuses and Employer Rules, Oregon Minimum Wage 2026: $15.55 Standard, $16.80 Portland Metro
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 243: Public Employee Rights and Benefits
§ 243.323Prohibition against entering into agreement with employee that prevents employee from discussing workplace harassment; exceptions; remedy for violationIn force
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or (4) of this section, it is an unlawful employment practice under ORS chapter 659A for a public employer to enter into an agreement with a former, current or prospective employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, promotion, compensation or the receipt of benefits, that contains a nondisclosure provision, a nondisparagement provision or any other provision that has the purpose or effect of preventing the employee from disclosing or discussing workplace harassment: (a) That occurred between employees or between an employer and an employee in the workplace or at a work-related event that is off the employment premises and coordinated by or through the employer; or (b) That occurred between an employer and an employee off the employment premises.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mazur v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (District Court, D. Oregon 2025)“…an unlawful employment practice other than a violation of ORS 243.323, 659A.030, 659A.082, 659A.112 or 659A.3…”
- Perez v. Legacy Health (District Court, D. Oregon 2025)“…ivil action under ORS 659A.885 alleging a violation of ORS 243.323, 659A.030, 659A.082, 659A.112 or 6…”
- Denton v. Shriners Hospital for Children (District Court, D. Oregon 2024)“…ful employment practice other than a violation of ORS 243.323, 659A.030, 659A.082, 659A.112 or…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A: Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions; Administrative and Civil Enforcement § 659A.001 (Definitions)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Oregon Revised Statutes ch. 659A (employment discrimination and anti-retaliation)(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or. 210 (1975) (public-policy wrongful-discharge)(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- Simpson v. Western Graphics Corp., 293 Or. 96 (1982) (implied-contract exception)(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) - Discrimination at Work(oregon.gov).gov
- ORS 659A.820 (BOLI complaint deadlines: one year generally; five years for ORS 243.323, 659A.030, 659A.082, 659A.112 and 659A.370)(oregonlegislature.gov)
- Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald Publishing Co., 281 Or. 651 (1978) (handbook terms as part of the employment contract)(case.law)
- Simpson v. Western Graphics Corp., 293 Or. 96 (1982) (limits of a handbook just-cause claim)(case.law)
- Delaney v. Taco Time International, Inc., 297 Or. 10 (1984) (discharge for refusing to sign a false and arguably tortious statement)(case.law)
- Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or. 597 (1978) (discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim)(case.law)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.