Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.120

Section 652.120 does not bar wage deductions required by a collectively bargained employee-group insurance plan; any contrary construction must yield to federal labor law.

Coos Bay Lumber Co. v. Local 7-116, International Woodworkers of America · filed 1955-01-26

Therefore, we are of the opinion that if the Oregon monthly-pay statute were construed to prohibit the wage deductions in issue, it would have to yield to the explicit purposes and policy of the Labor Management Relations Act. ... We conclude that our wage law, ORS 652.120, lends no support to the employer's contentions.

Section 652.120 requires employers to pay wages that are due and owing on regular paydays; it does not require payment of compensation that has not yet become due under the governing bonus terms.

Walker v. American Optical Corporation · filed 1973-04-26

Nevertheless, the provisions of ORS 652.120 apply only to “wages” which are “due and owing.” Payments under this bonus plan may properly be regarded as “wages” in the sense of “compensation” for services provided by an employee to his employer. Nevertheless, such payments were not “due and owing” under the facts of this case, for the reasons previously stated.

Section 652.120 requires an employer to pay employees the wages due and owing to them; when compensation includes retirement benefits, an unpaid-wage recovery is limited to the portion the factfinder determines was actually unpaid.

Allen v. County of Jackson County · filed 2003-12-10

Alternatively, ORS 652.120 requires that the employer pay its employees “the wages due and owing to them.” In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendant did not pay them the full amount of wages that were due and sought the same amount of damages for the breach of contract claim and the wage claim. They did not distinguish between the measure of damages for each of those claims. In other words, plaintiffs sought to recover only their unpaid wages. The jury determined that, with regard to the pre-Measure 8 plaintiffs, the 5.7 percent salary increase effected by the ordinance was a substitute for the lost pension contributions resulting from Measure 8. The jury also determined that the wages due and owing to the pre-Measure 8 plaintiffs were their pre-Measure 8 salaries and a six percent pension contribution. Consequently, even though defendant violated ORS 652.610(3) by improperly deducting 6 percent of those plaintiffs’ wages, under the facts of this case, only .3 percent of the pre-Measure 8 plaintiffs’ wages were not paid.

Section 652.120(1) requires employers to pay all wages due and owing on the regular payday; here, only the net 0.3 percent was due and owing, not the full 6 percent deducted.

Allen v. County of Jackson County · filed 2006-02-24(1)

Plaintiffs’ second statutory wage claim is for “wages due and owing” under ORS 652.120. For the reasons just discussed, however, plaintiffs have not shown that 6 percent of their wages are due and owing. They showed only that 0.3 percent of their wages were due and owing, and the trial court gave them judgment for that amount. Plaintiffs are not entitled to any additional relief under ORS 652.120.

Section 652.120(1) requires employers to pay wages due and owing on the employee’s regular payday and governs the timing of payments owed under ORS 652.190.

Loucks v. Beaver Valley's Backyard Garden Products · filed 2015-11-12(1)

Moreover, ORS 652.120(1), not ORS 652.140(2) and ORS 652.150(1), regulates the timing of payments made under ORS 652.190.

Section 652.120(1) requires every employer to establish and maintain a regular payday on which all employees are paid the wages due and owing to them.

Cavitt v. Employment Division · filed 1990-12-26(1)

Employer violated ORS 652.120 and ORS 652.110 by failing to pay wages with negotiable funds on the regularly established pay day.

Section 652.120(1) requires every employer to establish a regular payday and pay all employees the wages due and owing on that payday, whether or not an employee requests payment.

Wales v. Walt Stallcup Enterprises · filed 2000-05-10(1)

For current employees, ORS 652.120(1) provides that “[e]very employer shall establish and maintain a regular payday, at which date all employees shall be paid the wages due and owing to them.” The statute thus creates a legal obligation for the employer to pay wages on the regular payday, without regard to an employee’s request for them.

Section 652.120 requires payment of all wages at regular paydays, and an illegal wage deduction may be pursued as a regular wage claim under that provision.

Allen v. County of Jackson · filed 2000-07-12

In short, there is no such thing as a "claim" under ORS 652.610(3). Rather, when an employer deducts amounts that are illegal under that statute, the employee may file one or both of two different kinds of claims: (1) a regular wage claim under ORS 652.120 (requiring payment of all wages at regular paydays) or ORS 652.140 (concerning payment of wages at termination of employment); or (2) a specific claim for illegal deductions under ORS 652.615, which includes the minimum damage amount and a separate, possibly easier, right to attorney fees. In this case, plaintiffs have adequately pled a claim of the first kind, and that claim includes with it the right to attorney fees under ORS 652.200(2) if they are successful. The trial court erred in dismissing the wage claim.

Section 652.120(1) requires every employer to maintain a regular payday and pay each employee all wages due and owing; Oregon law does not authorize rounding that underpays an employee when the exact time worked is recorded.

Eisele v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. · filed 2022-11-29(1)

Oregon statute requires “[e]very employer” to “establish and maintain a regular payday, at which date the employer shall pay all employees the wages due and owing to them.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.120(1). ... In summary, the Court concludes Defendant has not established that Oregon law authorizes time rounding that results in the failure to pay each employee for all of the time worked particularly when, as here, an employer can capture and has captured the exact amount of time an employee has worked.

Section 652.120 mandates timely payment of wages and treats late-payment violations as distinct from minimum-wage violations.

Rother v. Lupenko · filed 2013-04-12

Oregon law does include an explicit provision that mandates timely payment of wages. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.120. Thus, there is no need for the courts to read a timeliness requirement into the statute’s minimum wage provision, or to treat late payment as non-payment. Hurger v. Hyatt Lake Resort, Inc., establishes that late final paychecks are not also minimum wage violations under Oregon law. 13 P.3d 123, 125 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). It follows by analogy that violations of the timely payment requirement similarly are not minimum wage violations under Oregon law.

Section 652.120 requires employers to pay employees no later than 35 days after each pay period and, in specified circumstances, within three days after notice of an undisputed shortfall in wages.

Freeman v. Smith · filed 2021-09-23(2)

Unlike the FLSA, Oregon’s minimum wage laws include explicit time-of-payment requirements. Under ORS § 652.120, employers must pay their employees no later than 35 days after each pay period and within three days after receiving notice that an employee did not receive at least five percent of his or her wages on payday, provided that the employer does not dispute the amount. ORS § 652.120(2), (5).

Section 652.120(1) requires employers to pay wages due on an established payday, and a claim must identify a specific unpaid wage period or estimate the wages allegedly withheld.

Brooks · filed 2026-03-18(1)

ORS § 652.120(1) requires that employers pay wages due on an established payday, and ORS § 652.140(1) provides that all earned and unpaid wages must be paid promptly upon termination. To state a claim under these statutes, a plaintiff must allege: (i) a specific workweek in which specified minutes were deducted from his hours worked in violation of his right to full payment of wages and full payment of overtime wages due and owing or (ii) an estimate of the amount of all of the wages each defendant failed to pay in violation of [the statutes].

Section 652.120(1) requires employers to pay wages due and owing on a regular payday; intentionally manipulating a time-rounding policy to underpay employees can support a statutory wage claim.

Sue Jin Yi And Ronald Cox v. The Kroger Co. · filed 2018-02-05(1)

Pursuant to ORS section 652.120(1), "[e]very employer shall establish and maintain a regular payday, at which date the employer shall pay all employees the wages due and owing to them." ... Similarly, intentionally manipulating the application of a facially neutral rounding policy used to compute wages owed, resulting in underpayment, runs afoul of Washington's and Oregon's wage and hour statutes. Cox's claims qualify as statutory wage claims.

Section 652.120 permits an unpaid-wages claim for amounts improperly withheld from employees’ regular paychecks.

Gessele v. Jack In The Box Inc. · filed 2024-04-14

The Court, therefore, concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory attorney fees for their § 652.120 claim for overwithheld WBF assessments as well as for their franchise transfer class claim for late final paychecks pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.140.

Section 652.120 makes wages due on each regular payday, so prejudgment interest on underpaid wages accrues from the payday when they were due.

Eisele · filed 2026-05-18(1)

The Court found Plaintiff’s argument persuasive and concluded Plaintiff and putative plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest that accrued from the paydays on which they received less wages due to rounding and the date either Defendant ended its rounding practice or the date applicable to the manner in which their employment ended under § 652.140(1) or (2)). ... In turn ORS 652.120 requires employers to establish a regular payday “at which date the employer shall pay all employees the wages due and owing to them.”