Governing statute and enforcement agency
Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 659A prohibits unlawful discrimination in employment. ORS 659A.030 bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status, age (18 or older), and expunged juvenile record, and applies to employers with one or more employees. Discrimination based on disability (ORS 659A.112) and uniformed service (ORS 659A.082) is unlawful only for employers with six or more employees. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) enforces Chapter 659A through its Civil Rights Division, which investigates complaints and may order remedies. Employees may also file a civil action in court.
Race definition — protective hairstyles amendment and effective date
Oregon amended its legal definition of “race” in the employment discrimination context to expressly cover protective hairstyles. This change was enacted through House Bill 2935 (also called the Oregon CROWN Act), which added to ORS 659A.001(11) that “race includes physical characteristics that are historically associated with race, including but not limited to natural hair, hair texture, hair type and protective hairstyles.” For compliance purposes, “protective hairstyle” specifically embraces styles such as braids (including those with extensions or adorned), locs, and twists.
Effective date: The Oregon legislature passed HB 2935 in the 2021 session; Governor Kate Brown signed it on June 11, 2021. The revised definition and protections took effect on January 1, 2022, as Chapter 239, Oregon Laws 2021. From that date forward, discrimination against an employee or applicant based on natural hair, hair texture, or a protective hairstyle constitutes unlawful race discrimination under Oregon law (ORS 659A.030).
Source: ORS 659A.001(11) Source: 2021 Oregon Laws Ch. 239 (HB 2935)
Employer size threshold for uniformed service discrimination protections
Oregon's protections against employment discrimination for uniformed service members are codified in ORS 659A.082. However, the text of ORS 659A.082 does not specify any employer size threshold. By contrast, other anti-discrimination provisions in Chapter 659A expressly state their employer-size applicability: for example, ORS 659A.106 limits disability discrimination obligations to employers with six or more employees. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) website states that ORS 659A.082 applies only to employers with six or more employees, but this threshold does not appear in the statute's text as of June 2026. There is no cross-reference in ORS 659A.082 or in the Chapter 659A definitions that incorporates such a threshold by reference. Unless or until the legislature amends the law to clarify employer-size coverage, the primary authority for a size threshold in uniformed service discrimination is absent from the text of Chapter 659A. Practitioners should rely solely on the statute and remain alert to any regulatory or legislative updates.
Source: ORS 659A.082
Statute of limitations for workplace discrimination claims in Oregon
The statute of limitations for workplace discrimination claims in Oregon is governed by ORS Chapter 659A, and was materially amended by 2025 Oregon Laws Chapter 379 (HB 2957), effective June 24, 2025.
1. Filing a complaint with BOLI Prior to June 24, 2025, a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) must be filed within one year (365 days) of the alleged discriminatory act (ORS 659A.820(2)). Starting June 24, 2025, new rules apply:
- Employers are prohibited from requiring any agreement or policy that sets a filing deadline shorter than is allowed by statute (ORS 659A.880).
- BOLI must now close its file either (a) by dismissal, or (b) at the one-year anniversary of filing if the case is unresolved. At that time, BOLI must serve a notice on the complainant.
- The complainant has the later of 90 days from that notice or one year from the alleged act to file a civil suit (ORS 659A.875 as amended by 2025 c.379 §2).
2. Filing a lawsuit in court without first filing with BOLI
- For claims under ORS 659A.030 (protected class discrimination), 659A.082 (veterans), 659A.112 (disability), or 659A.370 (non-disclosure agreements), a civil action generally must be filed within five years of the alleged violation, including after the 2025 amendments (ORS 659A.875(1)(b)).
- All other actions under 659A.885 are subject to a one-year limit unless tolled by administrative filing or by the new BOLI notice rules above.
3. Deadlines after filing with BOLI (post-June 24, 2025)
- When BOLI mails its case-closure or right-to-sue notice, the complainant may file a civil action within 90 days of notice or within one year of the incident, whichever is later.
- These new provisions override shorter contractual or employer-imposed deadlines and are designed to prevent the waiver of statutory rights through employer agreements.
| Filing pathway | Deadline (effective June 24, 2025) | |-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | BOLI complaint only | 1 year from alleged act (statute), but see new notice rules | | Court, no BOLI first | 5 years (select claims); 1 year (other) | | Court after BOLI & notice | 90 days from notice, or the later of statutory deadlines |
Pre-2025 rules still govern claims arising before June 24, 2025. Practitioners should consult the full text of 2025 c.379 for complex transition and application details.
Source: ORS 659A.820(2) Source: ORS 659A.875 Source: 2025 Oregon Laws Chapter 379 (HB 2957) Source: ORS 659A.880
Administrative exhaustion / election of remedies (ORS 659A.870)
Under Oregon law, filing a complaint with BOLI is not required before filing a civil action under ORS 659A.885. ORS 659A.870(2) states clearly: “The filing of a complaint under ORS 659A.820 is not a condition precedent to the filing of any civil action.” That means an employee can proceed directly to court without first going through BOLI.
However, the statute also establishes an election of remedies. ORS 659A.870(1) provides that filing a court action under ORS 659A.885 (or federal law) waives the right to later file a BOLI complaint on those same matters. In other words, once you sue, you cannot then go back and file with the Bureau regarding the same claim.
There is a narrow exception for housing‐discrimination or disability real‐property claims under ORS 659A.145 / 659A.421 (or federal housing law): under ORS 659A.870(3), a civil‐action filing under those provisions “does not constitute an election of remedies or a waiver of the right … to file a complaint with the commissioner,” though BOLI must dismiss its complaint if court trial has begun.
Summing up:
- No exhaustion required — you may sue directly (ORS 659A.870(2)).
- Waiver upon filing — once you sue, that waives your BOLI‐complaint right (ORS 659A.870(1)).
- Exception for some housing/disability claims — suing does not waive BOLI complaint rights, though BOLI must drop the complaint after trial starts (ORS 659A.870(3)).
Source: ORS 659A.870. Source: ORS 659A.870
Remedies for unlawful discrimination under ORS Chapter 659A
Oregon law provides a well-defined suite of remedies for employees who prevail on workplace discrimination claims under ORS Chapter 659A.
Equitable and injunctive relief: Courts may order reinstatement, hiring, back pay, or other equitable relief as available under ORS 659A.885(1)-(2). Back pay is capped to the two-year period immediately preceding the filing of a BOLI complaint (if one was filed under ORS 659A.820) or the two years before the civil action was started, whichever is applicable (ORS 659A.885(2)).
Compensatory damages: For certain claims—including those for denial of family leave, disability accommodations, and certain whistleblower statutes—ORS 659A.885(3) authorizes compensatory damages (for emotional distress or other losses). In limited cases, the law provides for statutory minimum damages of $200—specifically, for violations such as denial of reinstatement after family medical leave (see ORS 659A.885(3)(a)-(b)). The statutory minimum does not apply to all discrimination claims; practitioners must consult the specific underlying section.
Punitive damages: Oregon courts may award punitive damages only if the employer acted with "malice, or with reckless indifference to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights," or if the employer has previously been adjudicated for the same kind of violation, as interpreted in case law. ORS 659A.885 does not independently create a default right to punitive damages, so availability depends on the underlying claim and facts.
Attorney fees and costs: The prevailing employee may be awarded reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal, as well as costs (ORS 659A.885(1)-(4)); this is a routine component of discrimination recovery in Oregon.
BOLI administrative remedies: When BOLI handles a discrimination case (as opposed to the courts), the Commissioner may order the employer to pay lost wages (back pay), compensatory damages, and take other affirmative steps (such as training or policy changes). Example remedies are documented in BOLI’s published final orders.
Remedies may be subject to further statutory or common-law limitations, and practitioners should confirm the precise relief based on the type of claim and when filed.
Source: ORS 659A.885 Source: BOLI Final Orders — Sample Remedies
Oregon retaliation protections—opposing discrimination, participating in proceedings, and whistleblowing under ORS 659A
Oregon law prohibits employers from retaliating or discriminating against employees for opposing unlawful practices, participating in proceedings, or reporting violations, under several key provisions of ORS Chapter 659A:
Opposition to unlawful practices: ORS 659A.030(1)(f) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer "to discriminate against any person because that person has opposed any unlawful practice" under Chapter 659A. That protects individuals who object to or resist discriminatory treatment—whether raised informally or formally. The statute itself does not expressly define "opposition" as limited only to formal complaints; Oregon case law or BOLI guidance may elaborate, but the statutory text supports broad protection. Source: ORS 659A.030(1)(f)
Participation in proceedings: ORS 659A.030(1)(g) separately bars discrimination "because such person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding" under the chapter. This protects employees participating in investigations, hearings, or enforcement actions related to discrimination or other unlawful practices. Source: ORS 659A.030(1)(g)
Whistleblower protections for reporting violations or criminal activity:
- ORS 659A.199(1) protects employees who, "in good faith," report information they believe evidences a violation of state or federal law, rule, or regulation. This is not limited to discrimination, but covers any such reports to a supervisor, public body, or law enforcement.
Source: ORS 659A.199
- ORS 659A.230 provides further protection for employees who report criminal activity, cause a complaint to be filed, initiate or assist in proceedings, or testify therein.
Source: ORS 659A.230
Each anti-retaliation protection in Chapter 659A targets a specific type of protected activity. Employers may not retaliate or discriminate against employees for engaging in any of these activities, but the circumstances covered by each provision are distinct within the statutory text. The reach of "opposition" or "participation" may be further detailed by Oregon courts or BOLI, though the statute itself provides the foundation.
Source: ORS 659A.030(1)(f)-(g) Source: ORS 659A.199 Source: ORS 659A.230
Enforcement procedures — administrative exhaustion and civil actions
In Oregon, Chapter 659A gives employees a choice: they may file an administrative complaint with BOLI or proceed directly to court—but not both on the same claims.
No exhaustion requirement ORS 659A.885 provides that if an employee files a civil action in circuit court under that same provision, that act “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.” This means exhaustion of BOLI administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to filing a civil suit.
Timing and effect Filing in court starts the judicial process immediately. Once the lawsuit begins, BOLI ultimately loses jurisdiction over that same claim. Conversely, if an employee files first with BOLI under ORS 659A.820, they still may later file a civil suit—subject to the statute of limitations and any administrative deadlines. But if they go to court first, they cannot then file with BOLI on those matters.
Practical takeaway for practitioners HR and counsel should advise employees that Oregon law gives them a strategic choice. If speed or private process matters, they might prefer filing directly in circuit court. If they prefer administrative investigation or mediation, they might start with BOLI. But starting in court forecloses the administrative path entirely.
Source: ORS 659A.885