Oregon State Civil Rights Complaint (ORS Chapter 659A)

OREGON STATE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT — ORS CHAPTER 659A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Introduction
3. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
4. Administrative Exhaustion / Right-to-Sue
5. Factual Allegations
6. Count I — Discrimination Under ORS § 659A.030
7. Count II — Hostile Work Environment / Harassment Under ORS §§ 659A.030 & 659A.370
8. Count III — Retaliation Under ORS § 659A.030(1)(f) and § 659A.199
9. Count IV — Aiding and Abetting Under ORS § 659A.030(1)(g) (Individual Liability)
10. Count V — Parallel Federal Claim (Title VII / ADA / ADEA)
11. Damages
12. Prayer for Relief
13. Demand for Trial by Jury
14. Reservation of Rights
15. Signature and Service Blocks
16. Verification
17. Certificate of Service
18. Oregon Practice Notes
19. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________________________]

Case No. [________________________________]

COMPLAINT

(Unlawful Employment Practices — ORS §§ 659A.030, 659A.112, 659A.199, 659A.370, 659A.885; Title VII; ADA; ADEA)

(Not Subject to Mandatory Arbitration — ORCP 18 B)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Amount in Controversy: NOT MORE THAN $[________________________________]

2. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, complains of Defendants and alleges as follows:

1. This action arises under ORS Chapter 659A — Oregon's principal civil rights statute — and parallel federal civil rights laws. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief (including reinstatement and back pay), prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorney fees, and costs to redress Defendants' unlawful [discrimination / harassment / retaliation] based on Plaintiff's [protected characteristic — e.g., race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age].

2. Oregon's anti-discrimination law applies to all employers regardless of size; there is no minimum-employee threshold under ORS 659A.030. The Oregon Equality Act (Or. Laws 2007, ch. 100) expressly added sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes (see ORS § 174.100(7)).

3. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

A. Parties

3. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] is, and at all material times was, a resident of [COUNTY] County, Oregon, and was employed by Defendant Employer from on or about [__/__/____] through on or about [__/__/____].

4. Defendant [EMPLOYER NAME] ("Employer") is an Oregon [corporation / LLC / other] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS], [CITY], Oregon, and at all material times employed Plaintiff in [COUNTY] County, Oregon. Employer is an "employer" within the meaning of ORS § 659A.001(4) and a "person" within the meaning of ORS § 659A.001(9).

5. Defendant [INDIVIDUAL NAME] ("Individual Defendant") is, on information and belief, a resident of [COUNTY] County, Oregon, and at all material times was Plaintiff's [supervisor / manager / co-worker] at Employer. Individual Defendant is sued in [his/her/their] individual capacity for aiding and abetting unlawful practices under ORS § 659A.030(1)(g).

B. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

6. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Article VII (Amended), § 9 of the Oregon Constitution and ORS § 659A.885(1), which authorizes "any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful practice specified in subsection (2) of [ORS 659A.885]" to "file a civil action in circuit court."

7. To the extent Plaintiff asserts parallel federal claims, this Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820 (1990).

C. Venue

8. Venue is proper in this Court under ORS § 14.080 because the unlawful practices alleged herein occurred in [COUNTY] County, Oregon, and Defendant Employer maintains a place of business in this county.

4. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION / RIGHT-TO-SUE

Option A — No BOLI Filing (Direct Civil Action)

9. Plaintiff has not filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ("BOLI") regarding the unlawful practices alleged herein. Under ORS § 659A.885(1), administrative exhaustion is not a prerequisite to a civil action under Chapter 659A. This action is timely filed within the five-year limitations period of ORS § 659A.820(2)(a).

Option B — BOLI Charge Filed and Withdrawn

9. On [__/__/____], Plaintiff filed a verified complaint of unlawful employment practices with BOLI's Civil Rights Division (BOLI Case No. [________________________________]). Plaintiff withdrew that complaint on [__/__/____] before BOLI made any substantive determination, thereby preserving Plaintiff's right to maintain this civil action under ORS § 659A.870.

Option C — BOLI 90-Day Right-to-Sue Notice Issued

9. On [__/__/____], Plaintiff filed a verified complaint with BOLI (BOLI Case No. [________________________________]). On [__/__/____], the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries issued a 90-day notice pursuant to ORS § 659A.880, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. This action is filed within the time prescribed by ORS § 659A.875, as amended by HB 2957 (2025).

Federal Exhaustion (where applicable)

10. With respect to the parallel federal claim asserted in Count V, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on [__/__/____] (EEOC Charge No. [________________________________]), within 300 days of the most recent unlawful practice. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on [__/__/____] (Exhibit B), and this action is filed within 90 days thereof.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff was hired by Employer on or about [__/__/____] as a [POSITION TITLE] at a salary of $[AMOUNT] per [year/hour].

12. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a member of one or more protected classes under ORS § 659A.030, specifically: [describe — e.g., African American (race); female (sex); lesbian (sexual orientation); transgender (gender identity); over age 40; living with diabetes (ORS § 659A.112 disability); pregnant; veteran].

13. Plaintiff was qualified for [his/her/their] position and performed [his/her/their] duties competently throughout [his/her/their] employment, as reflected in [describe — e.g., positive performance reviews dated __/__/____, the merit increase awarded on __/__/____, the "exceeds expectations" rating issued by __________].

14. Beginning on or about [__/__/____], [describe specific adverse actions, harassing conduct, or retaliatory conduct, including dates, actors, and witnesses — e.g., on __/__/____, Individual Defendant told Plaintiff "we don't promote your kind here"; on __/__/____, Plaintiff's request for a reasonable accommodation was denied without engaging in the interactive process; on __/__/____, Plaintiff was disciplined for conduct that similarly situated employees outside the protected class engaged in without consequence].

15. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff complained to [HR / supervisor / Individual Defendant] about [the conduct described above]. Employer [failed to investigate / conducted a sham investigation / took no remedial action / retaliated against Plaintiff].

16. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff was [terminated / demoted / constructively discharged / denied promotion / subjected to other adverse action]. The reasons given by Employer — [stated reasons] — were pretextual, as [describe pretext — e.g., the cited "performance issues" had never been raised before; similarly situated employees outside the protected class engaged in identical conduct without consequence; the timing closely followed Plaintiff's protected complaint].

17. [Add additional paragraphs as needed describing the full timeline, comparator evidence, decision-makers, witnesses, written communications, and any continuing-violation theory.]

6. COUNT I — DISCRIMINATION UNDER ORS § 659A.030

(Against Defendant Employer)

18. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 17.

19. ORS § 659A.030(1)(a)–(b) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status, age, or expunged juvenile record, to refuse to hire, to discharge, or to discriminate in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

20. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under ORS § 659A.030, was qualified for [his/her/their] position, suffered an adverse employment action, and the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination — including disparate treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

21. Defendant Employer's stated reasons for the adverse action were pretextual, and the true reason was Plaintiff's protected characteristic.

22. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered the damages set forth in Paragraph 35 below.

7. COUNT II — HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT / HARASSMENT UNDER ORS §§ 659A.030 & 659A.370

(Against Defendant Employer)

23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 22.

24. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome conduct based on [protected characteristic] that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Plaintiff's employment and create an abusive working environment, both objectively and subjectively. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993); Harris v. Pameco Corp., 170 Or. App. 164 (2000).

25. Defendant Employer knew or should have known of the harassment through [Plaintiff's complaints to HR on __/__/____ / the open conduct of Individual Defendant who is a supervisor / etc.] and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.

26. To the extent the conduct constitutes sexual harassment or harassment under the Workplace Fairness Act, ORS § 659A.370 separately prohibits the conduct and (a) renders unenforceable any non-disclosure, non-disparagement, or no-rehire provision entered into on or after September 29, 2019, that prevents Plaintiff from disclosing or discussing such conduct, and (b) extends the statute of limitations to five years.

8. COUNT III — RETALIATION UNDER ORS § 659A.030(1)(f) AND § 659A.199

(Against Defendant Employer)

27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26.

28. ORS § 659A.030(1)(f) makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any person because such person has opposed any unlawful practice or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under Chapter 659A. ORS § 659A.199 separately prohibits private-employer retaliation against an employee who in good faith reports information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of state or federal law.

29. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by [describe — e.g., complaining to HR on __/__/____ about discriminatory conduct; filing a BOLI charge on __/__/____; refusing to participate in unlawful conduct].

30. Defendant Employer was aware of Plaintiff's protected activity and took materially adverse action against Plaintiff — namely [adverse action] — within [__] days of the protected activity. The temporal proximity and [other circumstantial evidence] establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

9. COUNT IV — AIDING AND ABETTING UNDER ORS § 659A.030(1)(g) (INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY)

(Against Individual Defendant)

31. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 30.

32. ORS § 659A.030(1)(g) makes it an unlawful employment practice "[f]or any person, whether an employer or an employee, to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this chapter or to attempt to do so." Individual supervisors and co-workers are subject to personal liability under this provision. See McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532 (1995); Schram v. Albertson's, Inc., 146 Or. App. 415 (1997).

33. Individual Defendant [describe specific acts — e.g., personally made discriminatory comments, made the termination decision, refused to investigate], thereby aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing the unlawful practices alleged in Counts I–III.

10. COUNT V — PARALLEL FEDERAL CLAIM (TITLE VII / ADA / ADEA)

(Against Defendant Employer)

34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 33. The same conduct described above also violates [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (Title VII) / 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (ADA) / 29 U.S.C. § 623 (ADEA)]. Plaintiff has timely exhausted federal administrative remedies as set forth in Paragraph 10. Plaintiff seeks all remedies available under federal law, including compensatory damages, punitive damages (subject to the statutory cap of 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3) where applicable), and attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) / 42 U.S.C. § 12205 / 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).

11. DAMAGES

35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer:

• A. Economic damages, including lost wages and benefits (back pay) of approximately $[AMOUNT] through the date of trial; future lost earnings and benefits (front pay) in an amount to be determined at trial; lost retirement and other employment benefits; and out-of-pocket medical and other expenses;
• B. Non-economic damages, including emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, loss of professional reputation, and inconvenience, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
• C. Punitive damages, pursuant to ORS § 659A.885(1) and ORS §§ 31.725–31.735, on the basis that Defendants acted with malice or showed a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm and acted with a conscious indifference to the health, safety, and welfare of others;
• D. Equitable relief, including reinstatement, expungement of negative personnel records, and injunctive relief; and
• E. Attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS § 659A.885(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (as applicable).

12. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally where appropriate, awarding Plaintiff:

• A. Economic damages in an amount not less than $[AMOUNT] and not greater than $[AMOUNT], including back pay, front pay, and lost benefits;
• B. Non-economic damages in an amount not greater than $[AMOUNT], to be determined by the trier of fact;
• C. Punitive damages in an amount not greater than $[AMOUNT], sufficient to punish Defendants and deter similar conduct;
• D. Equitable relief, including reinstatement to Plaintiff's former position with full seniority and benefits, or in the alternative front pay; expungement of all adverse personnel records; and a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further unlawful practices;
• E. Reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit pursuant to ORS § 659A.885(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k);
• F. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the legal rate pursuant to ORS § 82.010; and
• G. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Total amount in controversy: not greater than $[________________________________].

13. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right under Article I, § 17 of the Oregon Constitution; ORCP 38; and the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

14. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to assert additional claims (including but not limited to common-law wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract), to add additional parties, and to seek leave under ORCP 23 to conform the pleadings to the proof as discovery may warrant.

15. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

DATED this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____].

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], OSB No. [######]

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, OREGON ZIP]

Telephone: [(___) ___-____]

Facsimile: [(___) ___-____]

Email: [EMAIL]

Trial Attorney: [ATTORNEY NAME]

16. VERIFICATION

STATE OF OREGON

County of [________________________________] — ss.

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], being first duly sworn on oath, depose and say: I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action; I have read the foregoing Complaint; and I know the contents thereof to be true except as to those matters stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME], Plaintiff

Subscribed and sworn to before me this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____].

[________________________________]

Notary Public for Oregon

(My Commission Expires: [_______________])

17. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT upon Defendants and their respective registered agents by [☐ personal service / ☐ certified mail, return receipt requested / ☐ Oregon e-Court File and Serve / ☐ other] at the following addresses:

[SERVICE LIST]

[________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], OSB No. [######]

18. OREGON PRACTICE NOTES

A. Statute of Limitations — SB 726 / Workplace Fairness Act

For employment claims under ORS §§ 659A.030, 659A.082 (veterans), 659A.112 (disability), and 659A.370 (Workplace Fairness Act), the limitations period is five (5) years under ORS § 659A.820(2)(a), as enacted by Senate Bill 726 (2019 Reg. Sess.). The 5-year SOL applies to unlawful employment practices that occur on or after September 29, 2019 — including but not limited to sexual harassment claims. For accruals before that date, the prior 1-year period applies. All other Chapter 659A claims (e.g., public-accommodations claims under ORS § 659A.142) remain at one (1) year under ORS § 659A.820(2)(b).

B. Election of Remedies (BOLI vs. Circuit Court)

ORS § 659A.870 generally bars maintaining both a BOLI administrative complaint and a circuit-court civil action on the same claim. A complainant who has filed with BOLI must withdraw the BOLI charge before initiating a civil action, unless BOLI has issued a 90-day right-to-sue notice under ORS § 659A.880 (in which case the suit must be filed within 90 days of mailing — but see HB 2957 (2025) for revised mechanics).

C. Punitive Damages

ORS § 659A.885 does not impose a statute-specific cap on punitive damages. Awards remain subject to the general punitive damages standards in ORS §§ 31.725–31.735, which require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice or showed a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm. A 60% allocation to the State of Oregon Criminal Injuries Compensation Account applies under ORS § 31.735. Federal due-process review under State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), and BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), independently constrains awards.

D. Individual Liability

Unlike Title VII, Oregon law permits individual liability for supervisors and co-workers who aid and abet unlawful practices under ORS § 659A.030(1)(g). See McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532 (1995). This is a powerful tool for keeping cases in state court (avoiding diversity removal) and for reaching individual assets.

E. Employer Coverage — No Threshold

Unlike Title VII (15-employee threshold) or the ADEA (20-employee threshold), Oregon's anti-discrimination laws apply to all employers regardless of size. A single-employee employer can be liable under ORS Chapter 659A.

F. Workplace Fairness Act NDA Restrictions

Effective October 1, 2020, ORS § 659A.370 (and §§ 659A.371–.375) prohibit employers from requiring nondisclosure, non-disparagement, or no-rehire provisions in employment agreements that prevent employees from disclosing or discussing conduct constituting discrimination, harassment, or sexual assault. SB 1586 (2022) further refined these restrictions. Settlement-agreement NDAs are permissible only when requested by the employee/claimant in writing and with a 7-day revocation period.

G. Pleading Specifics

Oregon is a fact-pleading jurisdiction (Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc., 295 Or. 467 (1983)). Plead the ultimate facts of each element of each claim. ORCP 18 B requires a specific dollar amount (or maximum) in the prayer.

H. Removal Risk

If Plaintiff joins federal claims (Count V), Defendants may remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 unless an Oregon-citizen Individual Defendant is properly joined and not "fraudulently joined." Joining a Supervisor under ORS § 659A.030(1)(g) typically defeats diversity removal where Plaintiff is also an Oregon citizen.

I. Workers' Compensation Exclusivity

Claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from a workplace harassment claim may be barred by ORS § 656.018 (workers' compensation exclusivity) absent allegations sufficient to invoke the deliberate-intent exception. See Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 275 Or. 245 (1976).

J. Service of Process

Service is governed by ORCP 7. Service on Oregon corporations is effected on the registered agent (ORCP 7 D(3)(b)). Out-of-state service uses the long-arm provisions in ORCP 4.

K. Court Forms and E-Filing

Oregon's mandatory e-filing system is Oregon eCourt File & Serve (OJD). Confirm local supplementary rules (UTCR + Supplementary Local Rules for the relevant county). The Oregon Judicial Department maintains state-level forms at https://www.courts.oregon.gov/forms.

19. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Statutes

• ORS Chapter 659A (Unlawful Discrimination) — https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors659A.html
• ORS § 659A.030 (Protected classes) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_659a.030
• ORS § 659A.112 (Disability) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_659a.112
• ORS § 659A.199 (Whistleblower — private employer) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_659a.199
• ORS § 659A.370 (Workplace Fairness Act) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_659a.370
• ORS § 659A.820 (Filing complaints — 5-year SOL) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_659a.820
• ORS § 659A.870 (Election of remedies) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_659a.870
• ORS § 659A.875 (Time limitations on civil action) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_659a.875
• ORS § 659A.880 (90-day notice) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_659a.880
• ORS § 659A.885 (Civil action — remedies) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_659a.885
• ORS § 31.725–.735 (Punitive damages) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_31.730

Legislation

• Senate Bill 726 (2019 Reg. Sess.) — Workplace Fairness Act (5-year SOL; NDA restrictions) — https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2019R1/Measures/Overview/SB726
• Senate Bill 1586 (2022 Reg. Sess.) — Refinements to Workplace Fairness Act
• House Bill 2957 (2025 Reg. Sess.) — Revised 90-day right-to-sue mechanics

Court Rules

• Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP) — https://www.courts.oregon.gov/rules
• Uniform Trial Court Rules (UTCR) — https://www.courts.oregon.gov/rules/Pages/utcr.aspx

Agencies

• Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) — https://www.oregon.gov/boli
• BOLI Civil Rights Division — Discrimination at Work — https://www.oregon.gov/boli/workers/pages/discrimination-at-work.aspx
• U.S. EEOC Seattle Field Office (covers Oregon) — https://www.eeoc.gov/field-office/seattle/location

Key Oregon Decisions

• McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532 (1995) (individual aiding-and-abetting liability)
• Schram v. Albertson's, Inc., 146 Or. App. 415 (1997) (supervisor liability under § 659A.030(1)(g))
• Harris v. Pameco Corp., 170 Or. App. 164 (2000) (hostile work environment standard)
• Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc., 295 Or. 467 (1983) (Oregon fact-pleading standard)
• Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 275 Or. 245 (1976) (workers' comp exclusivity / deliberate-intent exception)

Federal Authority

• Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (severe-or-pervasive standard)
• National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (continuing-violation doctrine)
• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework)
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (punitive damages due-process review)

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Oregon civil rights law contains procedural traps — particularly around BOLI election of remedies, the SB 726 5-year SOL trigger date, and the post-2025 HB 2957 90-day mechanic — that can extinguish a valid claim. An attorney licensed in Oregon must review and customize this Complaint before filing.