Opinion ID: 1364283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The 1977 statute.

Text: We recognize that it may not be proper to refer to statutory provisions enacted in 1977 for the purpose of determining whether the legislature previously intended provisions enacted by it in 1973 to abolish any cause of action at common law that plaintiff might otherwise have been entitled to pursue. Reference was made by the parties, however, to the 1977 amendments and their legislative history has relevance to the collateral question whether the statutory remedies existing at the time of plaintiff's discharge in 1975 were adequate remedies. House Bill 2223, as originally introduced, would have provided as follows: Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful employment practice as defined in subsection (13) of ORS 659.010 or an unlawful practice as defined in subsection (14) of ORS 659.010 shall have a cause of suit to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages and such further relief as will eliminate the effects of any unlawful practice found. The suit shall be commenced within one year of the alleged unlawful practice. Any person recovering damages or relief under this section shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court in addition to costs and necessary disbursements. At hearings before the House Labor Committee on HB 2223 there was testimony that Under Oregon laws, this administrative process [the filing of a complaint with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor] is the sole avenue of recourse for a complaint of this nature; that persons filing such complaints had been waiting two to four years for hearings with the Bureau of Labor, and that persons who file these complaints should have the option of pursuing their charges in court if they so desire. (Hearings on HB 2223, House Labor Committee, June 21, 1977, p. 6, and Feb. 4, 1977, Ex.B. pp. 1-2.) At hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on HB 2223 there was testimony by an advocate of that bill that it was a bill to create the private right of action and that it gives the aggrieved party the right to pursue his or her complaint in court rather than having to go through the labor commission. (Hearings on HB 2223, June 8, 1977, pp. 14-15.) As finally enacted substantial changes were made in HB 2223. Thus, it was provided that a person complaining of an unlawful employment practice (including discharge for making a claim for workers' compensation) may file a civil suit for injunctive relief and such other equitable relief as may be appropriate, including but not limited to reinstatement    with or without back pay, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. (Or. Laws 1977, ch. 453, § 6; ORS 659.121(1).) A person complaining of a discriminatory practice in real estate transactions or in public accommodations may file a civil action for compensatory damages or $200, whichever is greater, and for punitive damages not to exceed $2,500, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. (§ 6(2); ORS 659.121(2).) It was also provided that the filing of a complaint with the Commissioner shall not be a condition precedent to the filing of such a suit or action and that the filing of such a suit or action shall constitute both an election of remedies and a waiver of the right to file a complaint with the Commissioner. (§§ 6(3) and (4); ORS 659.121(3) and (4).) Finally, it was provided that the provisions of the Act shall apply only to those alleged acts of discrimination occurring on or after the effective date of this Act [October 4, 1977]. (Or. Laws 1977, ch. 453, § 7.)