Reproposed Oregon Legislation 2025

The 83rd Oregon legislative session is nearing its end and there are several employment bills still under consideration. Though nothing has been signed into law yet, these bills have the potential for major impacts on employers operating in the state.

SB 916: Expansion of Unemployment Benefits to Striking Workers

SB 916, perhaps the most controversial of the proposed bills, would provide unemployment benefits to striking workers for up to 26 weeks. SB 916 previously passed the Senate by a vote of 16–12: if passed by the House and signed by the Governor, the bill would go into effect immediately. Currently, unemployment benefits are only available to workers who (in most instances) are out of work through no choice of their own. SB 916 would change that, promising at least some pay to workers from both the public and private sectors who voluntarily choose to walk off the job.

The business community is concerned that providing benefits would incentivize strikes—or incentivize extending strikes (the current median strike duration in Oregon in the last several years is five days)—rather than encouraging both parties to negotiate in good faith. They also balk at the notion that they will be responsible for supporting striking workers by paying more state unemployment insurance tax. It’s common practice for unions to support members via a strike fund accumulated from member dues; SB 916 would shift that obligation from the unions to employers.

Oregon is already ranked 48th in “business friendliness” on CNBC’s Top States for Business list.  Perhaps not coincidentally, the two states ranked lower are New York and New Jersey, which are the only two states that With current trends pointing to longer and more frequent strikes in the state, SB 916 could dramatically impact Oregon’s business climate and significantly raise costs for Oregon employers.

HB 2957: Elimination of 90-Day Right-to-Sue Period Means Prolonged Legal Exposure for Employers

The 90-day right-to-sue letters issued by BOLI after investigating a harassment, retaliation or discrimination complaint are at risk of being eliminated. HB 2957 would allow workers to file lawsuits for up to five years under the statute of limitations for these claims, notwithstanding the fact they first filed a BOLI charge.

It is well established that employees who choose to pursue a BOLI civil rights claim under current law must sue within 90 days if BOLI chooses not to take action and issues the employee a right-to-sue letter. While there is no requirement under Oregon law that employees first pursue their claims with BOLI before filing a lawsuit, BOLI provides a no- (or low-) cost option for employees to seek redress. The benefit for employers is that the right-to-sue period provides them with a relatively short window to learn whether they will be haled into court.

HB 2957, which passed the House by a vote of 31–20 and is now with the Senate, threatens to undo this framework by permitting employees to pursue an investigation with BOLI, and if their complaint is dismissed, sit on their claims for the entire statutory period as if they had never availed themselves of BOLI’s jurisdiction, essentially subjecting employers to looming litigation for years. Another provision of the bill prohibits employers from entering into agreements that limit a worker’s timeframe to bring lawsuits in cases over which BOLI has jurisdiction.

Recently, business groups have begun to work with legislators to seek an amendment that would narrow the window for complaints dismissed by BOLI for lack of substantial evidence; under the amended version of HB 2957, those claims would have to be filed within one year of BOLI’s dismissal or the expiration of the statute of limitations (whichever is earlier). Taken together, both provisions of HB 2957 will extend the resolution of civil rights complaints by former employees (no matter the strength of those claims), making things more expensive, burdensome, and stressful for employers across the state, while doing little, if anything, to enhance or protect employee rights.

SB 426: Strict Liability for Subcontractor Wage Violations

SB 426 allows workers or third parties (which includes unions) to file claims for unpaid wages against owners and general contractors for alleged “wage theft” by a subcontractor, even if all obligations were met by the owner or general contractor, essentially meaning a person or company could be held strictly liable for another party’s unlawful failure to pay wages, even if it did not have knowledge of the violation. This would punish innocent parties rather than preventing wage theft in the construction industry, which proponents of the bill are attempting to address. A secondary effect of the bill would make real estate projects more burdensome and costly, which is ill-advised, given that construction in the Portland area is reportedly down even further this year.

SB 426 passed the Senate by a vote of 18–11 and is now under consideration in the House. For more information about SB 426, look at Stoel’s Real Estate and Construction blog post on this topic.

What Employers Should Do

Companies impacted by SB 916, HB 2957, or SB 426 should immediately contact their legislators and share their thoughts and concerns. Raising concerns after these bills are enacted into law will not repeal them; it is far easier and more effective to speak up before our legislators vote on these bills. The legislative session is ongoing, and your voice matters.  

You can use this tool to find your Oregon representatives.