Chapter 659

659.010 to 659.110

NOTE: Subject sections all subsequently renumbered or repealed

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Claim of wage discrimination on basis of sex stated cause of action under Fair Employment Practices Act, notwithstanding that city was excluded from coverage of Equal Pay Act. City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor and Ind., 298 Or 104, 690 P2d 475 (1984)

659.010

See annotations under ORS 659A.001 and 659A.850.

659.015

See annotations under ORS 659A.009.

659.020

See annotations under ORS 659A.006.

659.022

See annotations under ORS 659A.003.

659.028

See annotations under ORS 659A.321.

659.029

See annotations under ORS 659A.029.

659.030

See annotations under ORS 659A.030.

659.033

See annotations under ORS 659A.421.

659.035

See annotations under ORS 659A.233.

659.040

See annotations under ORS 659A.820.

659.050

NOTE: Repealed as of January 1, 2002; but see sec. 91, c. 621, Oregon Laws 2001

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Authorization to add additional respondents “upon” conclusion of investigation does not create open-ended post-investigative period for adding respondents. Body Imaging, P.C. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 166 Or App 54, 999 P2d 475 (2000)

659.060

NOTE: Repealed as of January 1, 2002; but see sec. 91, c. 621, Oregon Laws 2001

See annotations under ORS 659A.840, 659A.845 and 659A.850.

659.095

NOTE: Repealed as of January 1, 2002; but see sec. 91, c. 621, Oregon Laws 2001

See annotations under ORS 659A.835 and 659A.880.

659.115

See annotations under ORS 659A.815.

659.121

NOTE: Repealed as of January 1, 2002; but see sec. 91, c. 621, Oregon Laws 2001

See annotations under ORS 659A.875 and 659A.885.

659.131

See annotations under ORS 659A.309.

659.150

See annotations under ORS 659.850.

659.165

See annotations under ORS 659.870.

659.225

See annotations under ORS 659.840.

659.227

See annotations under ORS 659A.300.

659.280 to 659.290

See annotations under ORS 659A.250 to 659A.262.

659.285

See annotations under ORS 659A.253.

659.320

See annotations under ORS 659.825.

659.340

(formerly 659.131)

See annotations under ORS 659A.309.

659.360

See annotations under ORS 659A.174.

659.400 to 659.435

NOTE: Subject sections all subsequently renumbered or repealed

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Exclusive jurisdiction of National Railroad Adjustment Board over collective bargaining agreements does not preclude state jurisdiction over labor-related disputes between railroads and employes based on independent statutory right, such as discrimination claim under Oregon Handicapped Person’s Civil Rights Act, and not on resolution of contract dispute. Quinn v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 76 Or App 617, 711 P2d 139 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

These statutes seek to remedy handicaps that, like actual disabilities, extend beyond isolated mismatch of employer and employee. Miller v. AT&T Network Systems, 722 F Supp 633 (D. Or. 1989), aff’d 915 F2d 1404

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 16 WLR 535 (1979)

659.400

See annotations under ORS 659A.122.

659.410

See annotations under ORS 659A.109.

659.415

See annotations under ORS 659A.043.

659.420

See annotations under ORS 659A.046.

659.425

See annotations under ORS 659A.142.

659.470

See annotations under ORS 659A.150.

659.476

See annotations under ORS 659A.159.

659.515

See annotations under ORS 659A.206.

659.530

See annotations under ORS 659A.215.

659.825

(formerly 659.320)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

The employer’s status as trustee is not converted to that of fiduciary for purposes of the federal Bankruptcy Act exempting from discharge debts created by the bankrupt’s misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. In re Thornton, 544 F2d 1005 (1976)

659.840

(formerly 659.225)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 23 WLR 529, 578 (1987)

659.850

(formerly 659.150)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Order issued by Chancellor of Higher Education which found University of Oregon not in violation of this section was inadequate where it did not indicate criteria to be used in determining discrimination issue, so case had to be remanded for development of criteria to evaluate reasonableness of university’s actions. Aiken v. Lieuallen, 39 Or App 779, 593 P2d 1243 (1979)

Legislative history of this section did not support chancellor’s determination that three year compliance schedule of federal statute (Title IX) applied to this statute. Aiken v. Lieuallen, 39 Or App 779, 593 P2d 1243 (1979)

Reasonableness requirement applies to disparate impact discrimination. Montgomery v. Board of Education, 188 Or App 63, 71 P3d 94 (2003)

Prohibition against religious discrimination requires greater adjustments to accommodate person’s religious beliefs and practices than adjustments that could be required to avoid discrimination on nonreligious basis. Montgomery v. Board of Education, 188 Or App 63, 71 P3d 94 (2003)

School district can violate prohibition against subjecting person to discrimination by permitting community organization to discriminate in school program, service or activity, regardless of whether school personnel are involved. Powell v. Bunn, 341 Or 306, 142 P3d 1054 (2006)

Precipitating conduct during school activity that may ripen into discrimination at place and time outside of school program, service or activity is not discrimination. Powell v. Bunn, 341 Or 306, 142 P3d 1054 (2006)

Cases under Title VII of federal Civil Rights Act do not provide guidance in determining need for reasonable accommodation under this section. Nakashima v. Board of Education, 344 Or 497, 185 P3d 429 (2008)

For policy having disparate impact to be valid, challenged policy must clearly be reasonably necessary for existence or administration of program or activity involved. Nakashima v. Board of Education, 344 Or 497, 185 P3d 429 (2008)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Limiting married student housing to married students, (1976) Vol 37, p 1297

659.870

(formerly 659.165)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Placing matter on ballot for vote does not constitute “enactment.” Boytano v. Fritz, 131 Or App 466, 886 P2d 31 (1994), aff’d 321 Or 498, 901 P2d 835 (1995); Kinney v. O’Connor, 138 Or App 255, 907 P2d 257 (1995), modified 139 Or App 75, 910 P2d 1161 (1996)

This section is not invalid preemption in violation of home rule provisions of Constitution. deParrie v. State of Oregon, 133 Or App 613, 893 P2d 541 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

“Singles out” means to treat differently for purpose of denying something enjoyed by all other citizens. deParrie v. City of Portland, 138 Or App 105, 906 P2d 844 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

“Granting special rights, privileges or treatment” means preferential treatment on basis of sexual orientation, whether or not extending new rights. deParrie v. City of Portland, 138 Or App 105, 906 P2d 844 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Counting of ballots does not constitute “enactment.” Kinney v. O’Connor, 138 Or App 255, 907 P2d 257 (1995), modified 139 Or App 75, 910 P2d 1161 (1996)