Opinion ID: 1364283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The 1973 Act relating to handicapped persons.

Text: In 1973 the Oregon legislature enacted HB 3057 relating to handicapped persons and amending ORS ch. 659. According to a statement submitted by the sponsor of HB 3057, that bill was intended to extend to handicapped persons similar guarantees against discrimination as already provided under ch. 659 against discrimination on account of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (statement of Norm Silver, Administrator of Vocational Rehabilitation Division, Hearings on HB 3057, Senate State & Federal Affairs Committee, Exhibit file, p. 2). Section 4 of that bill provided, and for the first time, that: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against a workman with respect to hire or tenure or any term or condition of employment because the workman has applied for benefits or invoked or utilized the procedures provided for in ORS 656.001 to 656.794 [the Workers' Compensation Law]   . Or. Laws 1973, ch. 660, § 4; ORS 659.410. It was also provided (in § 9, ORS 659.435) that a person aggrieved by an unlawful employment practice (such as a discharge for filing a claim for workers' compensation, in violation of ORS 659.410) may file a complaint with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor under ORS 659.040 and that the Commissioner may then proceed under ORS 659.050 et seq. Under ORS 659.050 it was provided that the Commissioner may investigate such a complaint and, upon discovering substantial evidence to support it he may cause further steps to be taken, including conference and conciliation (ORS 659.050); that if such efforts failed he shall cause a hearing to be held and issue findings of fact, conclusions of law, and either a cease and desist order or an order dismissing the complaint (ORS 659.060), and that such an order was enforceable by mandamus or injunction and appealable under the Administrative Procedures Act (ORS 659.070, 659.085). Such was the state of the statutory law in Oregon when the plaintiff in this case was terminated on or about July 1, 1975, allegedly for the filing of a claim for workers' compensation. [5]