WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS

Uniform Standards and Procedures Manual

2022 Edition

January 2022

Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries

Val Hoyle

Commissioner

LETTER FROM COMMISSIONER HOYLE

Thank you for your interest in this handbook on whistleblower protections.

In 2018, Oregon expanded its whistleblowing protections so that employees can more

easily report mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuse. Whistleblowing activity is not

only protected by law, but also a critical tool that can prompt organizations to rethink

how they deliver services to the public. In addition, whistleblowers can help ensure that

employers follow vital health and safety rules designed to protect co-workers and

customers during the pandemic.

The ability to report mismanagement and abuse can help improve the efficiency of

public agencies and non-profit organizations. Strong, proactive whistleblower protection

policies can foster open communication while managing risk and litigation costs.

For employees, know that there are resources, such as the Civil Rights Division of the

Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), to protect you if you’re being treated unfairly

under the law. For employers, BOLI’s Technical Assistance for Employers Program is

dedicated to helping you navigate the regulatory landscape so that you stay compliant

and avoid potential problems in the first place.

If employers have compliance questions not addressed in this handbook, you can

contact our employer assistance program at ta.email@boli.oregon.gov or

971-361-8400. For employees who believe that you’ve been subjected to unlawful

retaliation for protected whistleblowing activities, you can contact our Civil Rights

Division at (971) 673-0764 or email us at [email protected].

Although this handbook is not intended as legal advice, we hope that it can serve as a

resource for both public and private sector organizations looking to adopt effective

systems for encouraging greater reporting and accountability, free from unlawful

retaliation.

Sincerely,

Val Hoyle

Bureau of Labor and Industries

oregon.gov/boli

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS ............................................................. 1

TOP 10 THINGS TO KNOW ............................................................................ 1

OREGON’S WHISTEBLOWER LAW: SENATE BILL 1559 AT-A-

GLANCE ........................................................................................................ 2

DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................... 3

What is Whistleblowing? .............................................................................................. 3

Importance of Whistleblowing ..................................................................................... 3

Some Notable Retaliation and Whistleblowing Enforcement Actions.......................... 4

Opposition to Unsafe Working Conditions ................................................................ 8

STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR ANONYMOUS

WHISTLEBLOWING .................................................................................. 13

Procedures for Disclosing Information under 659A.200, 659A.224...................... 13

Best Practices ..................................................................................................................... 13

Rights and Remedies for Disclosing Information under 659A.200,

659A.224 .................................................................................................................... 16

Remedies ............................................................................................................................. 17

BOLI’s Civil Rights Complaint Process ........................................................................... 17

State Civil Court .................................................................................................................. 20

Complaining Through the Public Employer or Non-profit’s Internal Grievance

System ............................................................................................................................. 21

Appealing to the Employment Relations Board ............................................................. 21

Federal Protections ............................................................................................................ 21

Implementation of Statutes and Rules Under 659A.200 and

659A.224, Including Relevant Case Law ............................................................... 23

Other Notable Cases ......................................................................................................... 24

OTHER RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYEES .................................................. 25

CONTACTING BOLI ...................................................................................... 26

RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS ................................................................ 27

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS

TOP 10 THINGS TO KNOW

1) Public and certain non-profit employees in Oregon have the right to report

waste, fraud and abuse or other workplace violations without fear of

retaliation.

2) Retaliation can take many forms. Any adverse employment action – such as

termination, demotion, reduction of hours – can represent unlawful retaliation

when taken in response to a good faith report of a potential violation of state or

federal law.

3) Private sector employees have similar protections for disclosures of

violations of federal or state law.

4) A report does not have to be substantiated for the whistleblower to be

protected from retaliation. The employee must simply have a good faith belief

when reporting a violation of law or unsafe working conditions.

5) Employees have civil rights protections if they experience retaliation due to

protected whistleblowing activity, including filing a complaint with BOLI or

suing in circuit court. Judgments may include job reinstatement, back pay or

monetary damages.

6) Public and non-profit employers are not allowed to disclose the

whistleblower’s identity during an investigation without their consent.

7) All public and non-profit employers must have a written policy that describes

how employees can make protected whistleblowing disclosures.

8) Effective reporting channels and protections for whistleblowers not only protect

agencies from liability, but can also lead to better government performance.

9) Management must protect whistleblowers from retaliation not just by

supervisors, but by co-workers as well. Employers must take corrective

action when they determine that co-workers are retaliating against a peer for

whistleblowing activity.

10) Agencies should promptly investigate reports of retaliation and work proactively

to prevent such violations in the first place. The best practice response is to

have an independent, third party investigate whistleblower reports.

OREGON’S WHISTEBLOWER LAW:

SENATE BILL 1559 AT-A-GLANCE

In 2018, Oregon expanded its whistleblowing protection efforts for public employees by

establishing a pilot program for anonymous reporting, requiring the creation of uniform

standards and procedures for employees, and requiring biennial reports to the state

legislature.

Sponsored by Senator Jackie Winters, SB 1559 earned broad, bipartisan support when

signed into law by Governor Kate Brown after the 2018 regular session of the state

legislature.

The bill strengthens several existing whistleblower protections for public and non-profit

employees by requiring the following:

• The Oregon Health Authority, the Oregon Departments of Transportation,

the Oregon Department of Human Services, and the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality must create procedures for anonymous disclosures

pertaining to ORS 659A.203, i.e., protected whistleblowing activity. The reporting

provision will serve as a pilot program until its sunset on January 2, 2021.

• BOLI shall create and make publicly available a uniform standards and

procedures manual to serve as a resource for public and non-profit employers

and employees alike.

• BOLI must report to the governor and legislative assembly, in odd-numbered

years the number of whistleblowing disclosures as well as the number of

retaliation reports made to the four above-mentioned agencies.

DEFINITIONS

What is Whistleblowing?

Over the years, the Oregon Legislature has expanded protections for “whistleblowers” –

employees who report illegal activity by their employers. Oregon public employee

whistleblower statutes prohibit public employers from taking action against or prohibiting

employees from responding to legislative requests, disclosing information that the

employee believes is evidence of a violation of law, reporting public endangerment

resulting from an action by a public employer, or disclosing evidence of waste, fraud or

abuse.

Importance of Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing plays an important role in the health of organizations.

The ability to report mismanagement and abuse is not only protected by law, but can

also help improve the efficiency of public agencies and non-profit organizations. Think

of whistleblowing as an early warning system for outdated, ineffective or inefficient

systems that need attention.

Fostering a culture of improvement can help identify and control risks and threats to

your organization. For instance, in 2013, whistleblowers revealed a widespread abuse

of overtime rules at the U. S. Department of Homeland Security that was costing

taxpayers $37 million annually. In response, Congress set up a new system for

determining overtime eligibility for border patrol agents. Recent years have also seen

whistleblowers revealing a pattern of negligence at Veterans Affairs hospitals, leading to

congressional reforms and increased funding for the Veterans Health Administration.

Private sector whistleblowing can help identify financial malfeasance and corporate

fraud. For instance, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission encourages

whistleblowing to help protect against manipulation of derivatives and similar financial

products. In fact, whistleblowers are often the main line of defense in private financial

institutions, which is why the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission operates a

whistleblower program that can award between 10 percent and 30 percent of the money

recovered from fraudulent activity at publicly traded companies. In fiscal year 2017, the

Commission awarded $45 million to whistleblowers for reporting fraud and enabling the

collecting sanctions.

Failure to protect whistleblowers comes at a cost. In the last decade, public entities in

Oregon have spent millions of dollars on settling lawsuits that alleged whistleblower

retaliation. Although each case is different — and settlement does not represent an

admission of an unlawful practice — civil rights claims involving retaliation and

whistleblowing have cost the state more than $4.7 million since January 2013.

Similarly, many private companies have seen significant monetary judgments for

unlawfully discharging employees that had reported wrongdoing. Each dollar spent

resolving these allegations could have been better spent on organizational improvement

and innovation.

Setting the right tone – with clear policies and protections for employees stepping

forward – can help prevent whistleblower retaliation while fostering a “speak-up” culture

of accountability.

Some Notable Retaliation and Whistleblowing Enforcement Actions

In 2016, a complainant sued the Oregon Department of Transportation after he had

been discharged following his internal disclosures relating to unsafe working conditions

and other violations of law. The State of Oregon settled the lawsuit for $95,000.

In 2015, BOLI awarded a complainant $1,620 in back pay and $20,000 for emotional

and mental suffering. The complainant was discharged because he had reported that

Blue Gryphon, the adult foster care home that employed him, had an inadequate food

supply for its residents. 34 BOLI 216.

In 2016, a federal court awarded a former University of Oregon public safety officer

$755,000 in damages and legal fees after finding that the university’s police department

retaliated against the officer for reporting department wrongdoing. Cleavenger v.

University of Oregon.

In 2014, the head of Oregon Correction Enterprises sued the Department of Corrections

for unlawful termination due to whistleblowing activity. The state settled the lawsuit for

$450,000. In the same year, the state settled with the former chief administrative officer

of the Employment Department, who claimed to have been terminated and retaliated

against for raising concerns about abuse of authority and violations of state law.

In 2014, BOLI awarded two complainants $100,000 in damages for physical, emotional

and mental suffering after they were terminated by a private company, Maltby

Biocontrol, Inc., after cooperating with law enforcement, a protected activity under

ORS 659A.230. 33 BOLI 121.

In 2006, a professor brought a lawsuit against the University of Oregon, claiming

retaliation for reporting financial irregularities in a university department. As part of a

settlement, the University paid the complainant $500,000.

In 2005, BOLI awarded $2,400 in lost wages and $25,000 for emotional distress to a

complainant who had been discharged by Cleopatra, Inc. for reporting criminal activity.

26 BOLI 125.

In 2002, BOLI awarded $2,414 and $30,763 in back pay to complainants, and $5,000

and $10,000 in damages for emotional distress. Complainants had reported perceived

criminal activity by their employer, Hermiston Assisted Living, Inc. 23 BOLI 96.

In 1997, a complainant employed as a kitchen manager, reported health code violations

to the county health department and was subsequently discharged. The commissioner

awarded $1,917 in back pay and $20,000 in damages for mental suffering for the

violations of whistleblower protections. 16 BOLI 21.

In 1995, a complainant reported unlawful activity by Earth Science Technology Inc., to

the Department of Environmental Quality and was discharged. BOLI awarded $20,700

and $30,000 for mental suffering to the complainant. 15 BOLI 115

In 1993, an Oregon court awarded $90,000 in damages to a correctional officer

employed at the Oregon State Correctional Institution, because the officer was demoted

after complaining about overcrowding in the prison.

What is Retaliation?

Retaliation occurs when an employer takes any adverse employment action against

an employee for making a good faith report of a violation of state or federal law, rule or

regulation. Adverse employment actions can include discharge, demotion, suspension

or discrimination or retaliation in any manner against an employee with regard to

promotion, compensation or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

Employers must work to ensure that whistleblowers are kept free from retaliation from

not only management, but co-workers as well. Employers should set clear expectations

that retaliation is not tolerated within their organizations.

Oregon law protects public and non-profit employees from retaliation for whistleblowing

activity. Under state civil rights law, public employers may not lawfully retaliate against

an employee who has disclosed information that the employee reasonably believes is

evidence of a violation of any federal or state law, rule or regulation by the agency.

ORS 659A.199.

Anti-retaliation measures protect employees for reporting violations of state or federal

law if made in good faith (regardless of whether a subsequent investigation

substantiates any actual violation). ORS 659A.199. Since 2009, the law has provided

whistleblowers — including both public and private sector employees — protection

when stepping forward to report potential violations of state or federal law, health or

safety concerns.

Employers may not discriminate or retaliate against an employee who in good faith

reports criminal activity, has caused a complaint to be filed, has cooperated with law

enforcement, has brought a civil action against an employer, or has testified at a civil

proceeding or criminal trial. ORS 659A.230.

Effective January 2017, Oregon law provides an affirmative defense for public and non-

profit employees facing civil or criminal charges related to the disclosure of lawfully

accessed confidential information. ORS 659A.230.

In addition, Oregon law makes it an unlawful employment practice for a covered

employer to discharge or otherwise discipline an employee for making such a disclosure

of information. ORS 659A.203. The law also requires public and non-profit employers to

develop a policy that describes an employee’s rights and remedies under the law and to

distribute the policy in either written or electronic form to each employee.

ORS 659A.210 (6).

The 2020 Oregon Legislature amended Oregon’s whistleblower statute, ORS 659A.203,

to prohibit school service employers from retaliating against school service employees

for reporting any potential violations of any COVID-19 executive orders, laws or safety

requirements. The law covers both public employers, but also private contractors

performing food service, janitorial, transportation or other educational services.

NOTE: Employees in the health care or residential care sectors may also bring good

faith reports of potential violations. ORS 659A.233. Employers may not discriminate or

retaliate against an employee who has, in good faith, reported a possible violation of

health care facility or residential care facility standards contained in ORS Chapter 441

and ORS Chapter 442. According to ORS 441.057, employees reporting inappropriate

care or any other violation of law or rules shall utilize established reporting procedures

within the health care facility first, except if they believe patient safety to be in immediate

jeopardy. Similarly, the law protects nursing staff against retaliatory action by hospitals if

the employees disclose unsafe, dangerous, or potentially dangerous care practices to a

manager in written form first. ORS 441.181. If nursing staff is reasonably certain that a

practice represents a crime or already known to management, they may report to a

private accreditation organization or a public body. Employees of home health or in-

home care agencies must also follow the procedures established by their employer

when reporting violations of law or rules, except if they believe a client’s safety to be in

immediate jeopardy. ORS 443.355. Despite those specific procedures for certain

employees in the health care and residential care sector, they may also be able to rely

on the general protection of the whistleblower law in ORS 659A.199 and

ORS 659A.203.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: I know that Oregon law prohibits employers from retaliating against

employees who are whistleblowers, but would it be legal for my agency to

terminate or take disciplinary action against an employee who reports

criminal activity if the reporting employee was also involved in the criminal

activity? Here is my situation: Two of my employees are involved in criminal

activity in violation of our agency’s policy. After a period of time, one

employee became uncomfortable with the activities and chose to report them.

If, after investigating the allegations, the agency finds that the reporting

employee was also originally involved in the same behavior as the other, may

we terminate the reporting employee for violating policy too?

A: It’s always legal for you to follow your legitimate, non-discriminatory company

policies and discipline employees for violations. If your agency has conducted a

thorough investigation and concluded sufficient evidence of criminal activity exists,

you may discipline that person as you would any other employee who violated the

same policies the same number of times. If your normal policy would be to

terminate a similarly situated employee, then yes, you could discharge the reporting

employee. Make sure the employee knows that the discipline was for the

involvement in criminal activity, not reporting the activity. However, you should

discuss the risk of a claim of retaliation with an attorney .

As noted, Oregon law protects employees who report criminal activity, file lawsuits,

cooperate with police investigations or testify in court proceedings. ORS 659A.230.

Do you have sufficient documentation to show that you are basing the discharge on

the employee’s behavior and alleged criminal activity and not on the actual

reporting of the other employee’s alleged misconduct? It’s always risky to terminate

an employee so soon after the employee engages in some legally protected activity

– in this case, whistleblowing – because the timing risks making your action appear

potentially retaliatory. The closer an adverse employment action is in time to a

protected event (reporting waste, testifying at the legislature, etc.) – known as

“temporal proximity” – the more likely it is that the action will invite scrutiny and

allegations of retaliation.

If you had to defend against a whistleblower retaliation claim, having what’s called

“comparator” evidence that supports a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for your

actions is helpful. For example, are you able to show that other whistleblowers

remain at the agency, dispelling the narrative that a pattern of discharging or

otherwise taking adverse action against whistleblowers exists? Are you able to

show that you have also terminated other employees engaged in the same

violations of policy? If not, you should proceed cautiously and think twice before

discharging the employee.

Q: I report to the chief financial officer and have discovered what I believe are

fraudulent activities in my organization’s accounting. I am thinking of going

over my supervisor’s head to management, but I am worried about losing my

job. Would I have legal protection?

A: Yes. There are both state and federal laws that provide protection to employees

who report illegal activities. Based on the information you’ve provided, you likely

have protection under the Oregon whistleblower statutes, and federal law could

also potentially protect you against retaliation if you report financial fraud within your

organization.

Let’s start with the Oregon civil rights statutes, which include a general

whistleblower law and one that applies to employees of public agencies.

Oregon’s general whistleblower statute protects employees from discrimination or

retaliation when they in good faith report criminal activity to any person, cooperate

with a criminal investigation, bring a civil proceeding against an employer or testify

at a civil proceeding or criminal trial. ORS 659A.230.

Some courts have also granted this protection when employees report internally

what they in good faith reasonably believe to be a criminal violation. So, you may

have protection under this law if you make a report to management, but it would

depend in part on your ability to explain your reason for believing that the activity

represented a violation of law.

The federal law that could give you protection as a whistleblower is the Sarbanes-

Oxley Act, enacted in the wake of corporate scandals at companies like Enron and

WorldCom. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act makes it unlawful for an employer to take

adverse action against an employee who provides information or cooperates in an

investigation related to financial fraud. The act also includes a provision for criminal

penalties for persons who interfere with an individual’s employment because of

protected activity.

Under the law, publicly traded companies must establish complaint procedures

regarding financial matters and internal accounting. Companies must allow

employees to make confidential, anonymous reports regarding questionable

accounting or auditing matters. An employee who reports what they reasonably

believe to be a securities law violation is protected from discharge, demotion,

harassment or discrimination. The protection applies not only when the employee

reports a violation to Congress or a federal agency, but also when the employee

reports internally to those with “authority to investigate, discover, or terminate for

misconduct.”

An employee who wishes to file a complaint under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act must do

so within 180 days of the date of the alleged discrimination. To file, contact the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the division at the U.S.

Department of Labor that will conduct the investigation. To prevail in whistleblower

discrimination claims, employees must show that they engaged in protected activity

(reported a violation), that the employer knew or suspected they did so, and that the

employee suffered some adverse employment action as a result.

Opposition to Unsafe Working Conditions

No employer may terminate, discipline or discriminate against employees or prospective

employees because they have opposed unsafe or unhealthy working conditions. This

protected activity includes the right to have complained or assisted in an occupational

safety and health proceeding under state law. ORS 654.062(5).

Employees may file civil rights complaints with the Civil Rights Division of the Bureau of

Labor and Industries or lawsuits in court if they believe that an employer has

discriminated against them because they opposed safety or health hazards. Retaliation

protection extends not just to employees who have filed formal complaints, but also to

those who merely raise issues informally, including any action that puts the employer on

notice that an employee believes a health or safety problem exists.

**IMPORTANT** The window in which to file a retaliation civil rights complaint with

BOLI’s Civil Rights Division is shorter than the five-year deadline from the date of harm

for many other violations. Employees alleging retaliation on the basis of reporting

unsafe working conditions must file a complaint with BOLI’s Civil Rights Division

within one year of the date that the individual had reason to believe that an illegal

action occurred.

Note: Retaliation law protections usually do not protect an employee who refuses to

work, unless that refusal is based upon a reasonable belief that the employee is at

immediate risk of serious injury or death, that the employer is not willing to take action to

alleviate that perceived risk, and that the refusal is limited to the specific activity that

poses the risk.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: An employee on our maintenance team, Kurt, has raised a number of safety

concerns about our forklifts needing basic maintenance and tune-ups. He has

also insisted that all warehouse staff wear a mask or face covering when on the

job site. As a result, we’ve increased the number of tune-ups and directed

employees that they will face disciplinary action for not wearing proper face

coverings. Several employees resent the new safety rules, and Kurt has reported

that they are retaliating against him, including calling him a “whiner” who “lives

in fear” What is our responsibility here?

A: Oregon law protects employees who oppose unsafe or unhealthy working conditions.

The Oregon Safe Employment Act, in particular, makes it unlawful for an employer to

retaliate or discipline an employee who raises safety concerns. ORS 654.062(5).

In addition, Oregon employers must follow all COVID-19 related executive orders,

including the requirement to wear a mask or face covering unless a disability prevents

the employee from doing so. By the way, Kurt would be entitled to retaliation protection

even if you were unable to determine that his co-workers were actually harassing him.

As long as Kurt or any other employee brings a safety concern to you in good faith, you

have a duty to protect the employee. Management may not allow retaliation against

such a worker.

To avoid legal liability and risk, you should promptly investigate complaints of retaliation.

Take them seriously. If you find evidence of harassment, take appropriate corrective

action to ensure that Kurt and others are kept free from retaliation and abuse.

The law provides broad protections from discrimination when an employee opposes any

illegal health and safety practices, makes any safety-related complaints, files a formal

complaint with OSHA, or testifies in an OSHA investigation. “Opposition” may take

numerous forms. Employees who exercise their rights to oppose health and safety

hazards in the workplace on behalf of other employees or prospective employees are

also protected. An employee talking with another co-worker about a safety hazard that

is overheard by management would still qualify for protection against unlawful

retaliation. The same would apply with an employee writing a letter to the editor of the

local paper regarding a protected matter.

Employees may file an OSHA-related discrimination complaint with BOLI within one

year of the alleged discriminatory act. But hopefully, you can proactively address your

workers’ concerns by encouraging employees to come forward when health or safety

issues arise, welcoming employee input, and assuring that your agency and Kurt’s co-

workers won’t take adverse action in response.

Q: What should an employer do if an employee complains of retaliation for

whistleblowing?

A: The employer must undertake a prompt, thorough investigation to determine whether

evidence of retaliation exists. The employer should take detailed statements from the

complaining person, the alleged retaliator, and any witnesses, and review and preserve

any documents (such as emails, notes or letters) or physical evidence available (voice

mail, surveillance video, etc.). Employers should document all steps of the investigation

– including rebuttal statements obtained when there is conflict between witnesses’

stories. A final report should include credibility findings whenever possible. Employers

may wish to consult an attorney for assistance with retaliation investigations. The

investigation should include a written plan for how investigators will conduct the inquiry.

Q: May an employer also be liable for retaliation by co-workers?

A: Yes, if the employer knew or should have known of the conduct, but failed to take

immediate and appropriate corrective action, an employer may be held liable for

retaliation.

Q: What if the investigation shows that retaliation has occurred?

A: The employer must take "immediate and appropriate corrective action," which means

doing whatever is necessary to put a stop to the retaliation. A good indicator that an

employer took immediate corrective action is that the behavior does not occur again.

Depending on the severity, appropriate corrective action could include any of the

following: verbal or written warnings; counseling; suspension; sensitivity training or

education on civil rights laws and appropriate workplace conduct; reassignment of

workers to different locations or shifts; or dismissal in more serious cases. When

choosing to make changes in assignments or work locations, it’s preferable to apply the

changes to the alleged retaliator(s) rather than the victim, otherwise the changes may

be construed as further retaliation. If the victim of the alleged retaliation requests a

change in their own assignments, schedule or location, it would be wise to get a written

acknowledgement from the victim that the change is desired and not viewed as

retaliation for having complained.

Q: Does the employee need to first complain to the alleged retaliator or employer

before taking legal action?

A: No. An employee alleging unlawful retaliation may file a lawsuit or a complaint with

an administrative agency without first exhausting intra-company remedies. It is

important however, for an employer to have in place policies, practices and procedures

for an employee or aggrieved person to pursue should a potential whistleblower

retaliation situation arise at work. In some cases, an employer may be able to avoid

liability by showing that the employee or aggrieved person unreasonably failed to take

advantage of those policies, practices or procedures, allowing the employer no

opportunity to take immediate corrective action to stop the behavior.

Q: What if the complaining worker is also not meeting work performance

standards?

A: Employees, including those who allege retaliation for whistleblowing, still must meet

work performance standards and the core duties of the position. However, the closer in

time you are to protected whistleblowing activity, the greater risk there is that a

disciplinary action may appear connected to whistleblowing and not a legitimate

performance issue. Proceed with caution.

As an employer, you still have the right to work with your employee to ensure that

performance standards are met. Ideally, you should have accurate, existing

performance reviews documenting the areas that require improvement. An employee

who files a complaint still has a duty to perform the essential functions of the job. You

should take special care – and go to greater lengths to document – how your actions

are solely rooted in business necessity, rather than serving as a pretext for unlawful

discrimination. You still may discipline a non-performing employee, but you should think

about how your actions would look if forced to defend them in front of a jury or

administrative law judge.

Sample Policy Language:

Protection Against Retaliation. We will not retaliate in any way against an employee

who reports discrimination, harassment or other workplace violation nor will we permit

any other employee to do so. Any person who retaliates against another employee for

reporting a potential violation will face disciplinary action, up to and including

termination. Management will consider any adverse employment action – such as loss

of hours, bullying, demotion or threats – as retaliation.

Any employee aware of or facing retaliation in the workplace should report that

information immediately to company management. An employee may make the report

verbally or in writing to the employee’s immediate supervisor or higher management, if

the employee prefers. As an alternative, an employee may report the harassment to the

company’s human resources office.

(Note: Employees should always report incidents involving violence or threats of

violence immediately to law enforcement). Employees may report to any of the persons

listed above, regardless of any particular chain of command.

Investigation. The recipient of the complaint shall promptly forward it to the appropriate

human resources official for investigation. All staff should know that the agency will take

such complaints seriously, including conducting prompt and discreet investigations, to

the degree possible. We will provide the complainant with a written response outlining

the results of the investigation within 30 calendar days of receiving the complaint,

absent extenuating circumstances. If the agency needs additional time for investigating

the allegations or issuing a report, it will notify the complainant in writing.

Note: Nothing in this process precludes any person from filing a formal grievance in

accordance with a collective bargaining agreement (if applicable), a complaint with the

Bureau of Labor and Industries’ Civil Rights Division or the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, or a lawsuit in court.

STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR

ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWING

Procedures for Disclosing Information under 659A.200, 659A.224

Best Practices

An effective whistleblower protection system requires commitment by senior leadership,

an organizational culture that encourages speaking up, multiple pathways for disclosing

and reporting retaliation, and ongoing training and monitoring across all levels of an

organization.

The following best practices are based on existing procedures from public agencies in

Oregon —the Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Departments of Transportation, Oregon

Department of Human Services, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

— as well as documents from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OHSA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Transparency International

and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These

recommendations apply to both the public and private sectors.

1) Only an open commitment from senior leadership and supervisors can provide

whistleblowers with effective protection against retaliation.

• Leadership should be familiar with definitions of whistleblowing and retaliation

and encourage employees to come forward. By emphasizing protections against

retaliation, they set a positive tone from the top. Simple steps like offering regular

office hours provide a good way to reach out to employees and establish a

culture of openness.

• Organizations, where possible, should designate a chief compliance officer who

enacts and enforces the whistleblower program independently from regular

human resources management.

• Leadership should work with union leaders for represented employees to

encourage employees at all levels to come forward when necessary.

• Organizations should have strong ethics codes and whistleblower policies that

are written in a clear, accessible manner and known by employees.

• Employers should take action against any employee found to have engaged in

retaliation against a co-worker.

2) Whistleblowers will only come forward if there is an internal speak-up culture.

• Employees are likely to report to their supervisors first. Employers should ensure

that supervisors receive adequate training on how to appropriately address

concerns while protecting the whistleblower.

• Agencies should create multiple channels for reporting, so that employees can

choose the reporting mechanism with which they are most comfortable. Outlets

could include the director of human resources, supervisors, an anonymous fraud,

waste, and abuse hotline, an office of Equity and Inclusion or the agency

leadership. Your written policy, trainings and posters should spell out the exact

ways of reaching those channels. Make it easy!

• An anonymous hotline is the most critical tool for protecting employees and

detecting illegal activities (and is required by SB 1559). Employers should work

to boost the hotline’s visibility so that all employees know about the resource. If

possible, the hotline should operate 24 hours a day. Allowing multiple uses of the

hotline — for instance, as a helpline or suggestion line — lowers the

psychological barriers to usage.

• Allow disclosures to be made in confidence via phone, postal mail, email, website

and in person with a designated employee. Include at least one way to disclose

information externally to the organization.

3) Anonymous whistleblowing will solicit more frequent high-quality disclosures.

• Agency policy should clearly identify which reporting avenues are anonymous

and which are not. Give specific directions for how to report anonymously. For

instance, a hotline can easily take anonymous disclosures, but visiting a

supervisor during office hours does not guarantee anonymity. Provide your

employees directions for how to write an anonymous letter or email. It is a good

practice to create an online form that allows employees to send anonymous

emails to the appropriate person.

• You should tell employees that even if reports are made anonymously,

sometimes it’s possible to know or guess who the complainant must be simply by

the nature of the allegations or investigation. State that you will try to keep a

complainant’s name anonymous or confidential, but you cannot guarantee that

no one will figure it out.

4) A transparent investigative process will instill confidence in whistleblowers

and help improve the public agency.

• It’s good practice to have a central investigative unit that handles all

whistleblower disclosures, regardless of how the organization received the

information. However, in many cases, this centralized approach will not be

possible since Oregon law has a very broad definition of whistleblowing. Because

of the expansive protections in the law, the specifics of an investigation will

depend on where an employer files a complaint, which office conducts the

investigation and the nature of the potential issue. Nonetheless, you should let

your employees know the general investigative process, including how long it will

typically take and what follow-up to expect. Tell your employees about the

investigation stages and what they entail, such as interviews, document review

and so on. Include information about who will lead the investigation and who to

come to with questions.

• Informal resolution and mediation might be options to offer, if all parties agree.

Investigators should close with a final report that summarizes the findings and

recommended actions. You should make the report available to affected parties,

or when appropriate, the agency as a whole.

5) Only proactive efforts will prevent retaliation.

• Organizations should review their formal policies and informal practices to

eliminate incentives that discourage whistleblowing. Your policy should clearly

outline how the organization will work to prevent retaliation, and what employees

can do if they think they experience retaliation. At a minimum, make clear to

everyone in the organization that your policy strictly prohibits retaliation of any

kind. You should provide managers with training on the investigative process,

including the expectation that the organization does not tolerate retaliation.

• The independent unit charged with investigating whistleblower claims should also

proactively work to ensure that there is no retaliation in the first place. When they

find evidence of retaliation, they should take immediate corrective action to

prevent further harm. Agencies have a duty to protect employees, even if the

substance of claims does not represent actual wrongdoing. Avoid the temptation

to act defensive. Instead, focus on reviewing the complaint and addressing the

concerns.

• Consider creating a retaliation response system separate from the investigation

of whistleblower claims. The system should have strong provisions to prevent

conflicts of interest. Employees should know that they can elevate matters to

higher levels if they believe that current investigators have a conflict. For

disclosures involving senior leadership, make sure that to have a process to

appoint third-party, independent investigators.

6) Whistleblowers will only come forward if they know how.

• Good training starts with a written whistleblower and anti-retaliation policy that

states in plain language the organizational commitment to a speak-up culture.

The policy should include the kinds of information that fall under protected

disclosures, proper channels for disclosures, protections in place against

retaliation, internal remedies for employees encountering retaliation, as well as

external remedies and legal protections. In all instances, agencies should include

specific examples of unlawful retaliation. To encourage more employees to come

forward, include past examples that demonstrate how your agency has

responded to whistleblowing complaints while protecting the employee stepping

forward.

• Training should be ongoing and regular to foster an open culture and ensure that

employees actually understand company policies and whistleblower rights.

• Training should specifically address what constitutes retaliation, how to respond

to it, and what to do when supervisors or co-workers do not respect employee

protections.

• Training should also cover relevant law, rights of employees, and what do to

when the internal mechanisms of the organization fail.

• Training for managers should specifically address how to protect employees

against retaliation, including from their peers. Emphasize that their role is not to

immediately defend the organization, but to take whistleblowers seriously.

Ultimately, a strong reporting culture and system will strengthen and improve the

organization.

7) Monitor progress in a way that encourages disclosures.

• Don’t measure progress by a low number of reports. Instead of sweeping issues

under the rug, know that a higher number of reports following a new program’s

implementation can actually be evidence of a speak-up culture taking hold. Try to

design measurements that capture the existence of such a culture.

• Problems often stay hidden from leadership. Consider an independent audit of

the program’s effectiveness. Tools that can support such transparency include

anonymous employee surveys and confidential interviews.

• Track the number of whistleblower reports carefully, and provide your employees

and the broader public with feedback on both the number of disclosures and the

resolution of each. For certain public agencies, this tracking is required by SB

1559. Put emphasis on how whistleblowers have made the agency more

effective and efficient.

Rights and Remedies for Disclosing Information under 659A.200, 659A.224

Civil Rights Laws:

Under ORS 659A.203, public and non-profit employees have the right to report their

good faith and reasonable belief of evidence of:

• A violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation;

• Mismanagement, gross waste of funds or abuse of authority; and

• Substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.

In addition, all public and non-profit employees have the right to cooperate with law

enforcement, including the duty to report those subject to a felony or misdemeanor

warrant for arrest. ORS 659A.212.

Public and non-profit employees also have the right to discuss the activities of any

public employee or agency with members of any state or local legislative assembly and

staff.

The public or non-profit employer may not require the public employee to give notice to

their supervisor prior to disclosure. However, public or non-profit employers may

establish an optional procedure for disclosing information first to a supervisor.

ORS 659A.221(2). In addition, any public or non-profit employer must have a written

policy on how to disclose information protected as whistleblowing activity.

ORS 659A.210(6).

The public or non-profit employer may neither discourage disclosure nor take

disciplinary action against employees for engaging in protected whistleblowing activity

(retaliation). Doing so is an unlawful employment practice and a Class A misdemeanor.

ORS 650A.203(1)(4).

Disclosing the name of an employee engaged in protected whistleblowing activity

without their consent is also an unlawful employment practice. ORS 659A.218(2).

Finally, adverse employment action against employees that have filed complaints for

retaliation is itself unlawful. ORS 659A.865.

Oregon law also protects whistleblowing of lawfully-accessed confidential information if

it is disclosed to any state or federal regulatory agency, any law enforcement agency,

any manager of a public or non-profit employer or an attorney licensed to practice law in

Oregon. The statute — ORS 659A.210 — sets forth the requirements for an employee

to establish an affirmative defense to a civil or criminal charge related to the disclosure

by the employee.

These rights are in addition to – and go beyond – other state whistleblower rights that

apply to all employees, including ORS 659A.199 protecting reports of violations of the

law or health and safety dangers covered by ORS 654.062.

In addition, some other whistleblowing activities may enjoy protection under different

federal laws administered by various federal agencies.

Remedies

Employees have several remedies when they experience retaliation due to their

protected whistleblowing activity:

• Filing a complaint with BOLI’s Civil Rights Division;

• Filing a civil suit in state circuit court;

• Complaining through the public employer or non-profit’s internal grievance

system;

• Appealing to the Employment Relations Board;

• Filing a grievance under a union contract, where applicable; and

• Filing a suit in federal district court or filing a complaint with an agency that

administers a federal whistleblowing law protection.

BOLI’s Civil Rights Complaint Process

The Civil Rights Division of BOLI (CRD) enforces whistleblower protections. Any person

experiencing unlawful discrimination or retaliation may file a complaint within a year of

the date of harm or for alleged OSHA-related retaliation, within one year. Under the

agency’s administrative process, the Civil Rights Division will conduct a fair and

thorough investigation.

Investigators do not serve as advocates for complainants or respondents, but rather as

neutral fact finders dedicated to determining whether substantial evidence of the alleged

retaliation exists, given the unique situation.

There are several steps involved in the civil rights complaint process at BOLI. The steps

vary, depending on the findings of the CRD intake officer and the investigator assigned

to the complaint. The division must complete most investigations within one year from

their filing date by statute, but many take considerably less time.

An employee may initiate a complaint through a telephone call or email to the Civil

Rights Division. The aggrieved employee (called a “complainant”) will then fill out and

return a complaint questionnaire to the division.

Once the Civil Rights Division receives the questionnaire, an intake officer will

determine if the division has jurisdiction and if there is prima-facie evidence to draft a

formal complaint. The division may contact the complainant to request more information

or documentation. If the evidence provided by the complainant does not fall within

BOLI’s jurisdiction or there is not enough evidence to warrant an investigation, the

agency notifies the complainant in writing.

If the complainant provides sufficient evidence to show a basis for alleging

discrimination, investigators or intake officers will draft a formal complaint against the

employer (called a “respondent”). A formal complaint will include:

• Name and address of the complainant and the respondent;

• Protected class of the complainant; and

• Description of the alleged discriminatory incidents, including:

o date(s) of occurrence(s);

o alleged discriminatory action;

o how the action harmed the complainant; and

o the causal connection between the complainant's protected class and the

alleged harm.

The complainant will receive a mailed formal complaint for review. When the Civil Rights

Division receives a signed copy from the complainant, it considers the complaint verified

and filed on that date.

BOLI’s federal counterpart, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),

investigates violations of federal discrimination laws (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with

Disabilities Act). If an allegation includes potential violations of both state and federal

law, a complaint filed with BOLI is automatically co-filed with the federal counterpart, the

EEOC. These are called dual filings.

After the agency receives the complaint, the Civil Rights Division sends a notification

letter to both the complainant and the respondent. The division determines what

additional information, if any, is necessary to make a determination in the case.

Investigators may request additional information from the respondent, complainant or

third parties.

In considering whether to dismiss the complaint, the investigator examines the evidence

offered by both the complainant and respondent. If the division believes that substantial

evidence of discrimination exists, it issues what’s called a “Notice of Substantial

Evidence Determination.” Oregon law defines substantial evidence as “proof that a

reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support the allegations of the

complaint.” OAR 839-003-0005(15)(a).

When investigators dismiss a complaint, they notify all parties and in applicable cases,

send the complainant a notice of their right to file a civil suit. ORS 659A.880.

At any time, BOLI may facilitate settlement and conciliation between the complainant

and the respondent. If the investigator makes a substantial evidence determination, the

enforcement division will contact both parties and may attempt to reach a voluntary, no-

fault settlement and conciliation of the complaint. If the parties reach a conciliation

agreement, the agency will close the file.

After a substantial evidence finding, if the parties do not agree on a settlement, the Civil

Rights Division will review the case to decide whether to refer the case to BOLI’s

Administrative Prosecution Unit (APU) for further action. If either the Civil Rights

Division management or the Administrative Prosecution Unit decide against an

administrative hearing, the agency will close the case and issue a notice to the

complainant of their right to file a civil suit within 90 days.

If agency administrative prosecutors accept the case, the complainant has the option of

moving toward a contested hearing before an agency administrative law judge, or

withdrawing their complaint from BOLI and filing a lawsuit in state or federal court.

If the agency finds that the public or non-profit employer has engaged in an unlawful

practice, the BOLI commissioner may issue an appropriate cease and desist order

including requiring the respondent to:

• Eliminate the effects of the unlawful practice, including paying an award of actual

damages suffered by the complainant, complying with injunctive or other

equitable relief;

• Protect the rights of the complainant and other similarly situated persons;

• Submit reports to the commissioner to ensure compliance; and

• Refrain from any action specified in the order that would jeopardize the rights of

the complainant or other persons similarly situated.

Employees and whistleblowers can contact the Bureau of Labor and Industries’ Civil

Rights Division at (971) 673-0764 or visit the agency’s website at

oregon.gov/boli/civil-rights. Potential complainants can have an informal, confidential

conversation with division staff prior to filing a formal civil rights complaint. Please note

that actual civil rights complaints are public records subject to disclosure after they are

filed. ORS 659A.850.

State Civil Court

Any person alleging unlawful retaliation for whistleblowing activity may file a civil action

in circuit court. The court may order injunctive relief and any other equitable relief that

may be appropriate, including:

• Reinstatement or the hiring of employees with or without back pay;

• Awarding prevailing party costs and reasonable attorney fees at trial and on

appeal; and

• Compensatory and punitive damages.

The employee or affected party must file within one year after the occurrence of the

unlawful employment practice, unless a timely complaint was first filed with BOLI.

659A.885. If BOLI dismisses a complaint, the complainant has 90 days to file in circuit

court. 659A.880.

Bringing a Case:

• To establish a prima facie case under the whistleblower protection law, a plaintiff

must show that: (1) they engaged in a protected activity; (2) they suffered an

adverse employment decision; and (3) there was a causal link between the

protected activity and the adverse employment decision. Lindsey v. Clatskanie

People’s Utility District; Shepard v. City of Portland. If a prima facie case is

established, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies, i.e., the

employer needs to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for

termination and the employee needs to show that this reason was a mere

pretext. Shepard v. City of Portland.

• To determine whether there is a causal connection between a public employee’s

termination and the employee’s protected conduct under the whistleblower

protection law as required by the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework,

a court examines the knowledge of employee’s reports by the supervisor

responsible for employee’s discharge and the timing of that discharge. Harper v.

Mt. Hood Community College; Medina v. State of Oregon.

• Constructive discharge is prohibited retaliation under the whistleblower protection

law. See OAR 839-005-0011.

• An employee may not blow the whistle on their own misconduct to escape

disciplinary action. Minter v. Multnomah County.

Remedies:

• The statutory remedies available under the whistleblower protection law do not

prevent employees from bringing common law action for wrongful discharge.

McGuire v. Jackson Education Service District; Olsen v. Deschutes County.

• Recovery of damages from public employers under the whistleblower protection

law are limited by the Oregon Tort Claims Act. Rabkin v. Oregon Health Science

University. Liability limits for personal injury and death awards for public entities

are regularly adjusted for inflation and other factors. They can be found in

ORS 30.271 and ORS 30.272.

Complaining Through the Public Employer or Non-profit’s Internal Grievance

System

Check employer’s policies.

Appealing to the Employment Relations Board

The employee may also appeal to the Employment Relations Board any adverse acts of

the employer based on protected whistleblowing activity. ORS 240.560 via 659A.215.

To file an unfair labor practice (ULF) complaint with the Employment Relations Board,

an employee may use the form from the agency’s website (oregon.gov/erb), and submit

it with a $300 filing fee to:

• Employment Relations Board, 528 Cottage St. NE, Suite 400, Salem, OR 97301;

• [email protected]; or

• Fax: (503) 373-0021 (there is a $25 fax filing fee).

Filing a Grievance Under a Union Contract

Represented employees may always consult their union when deciding how to proceed

when they have been subjected to unlawful employment practices. Under some

circumstances, the grievance officer of the union may be able to resolve an issue

through the formal grievance process.

Federal Protections

Federal law does not have general whistleblower protections for public and non-profit

employees in the same way Oregon organizes its protections. However, many federal

laws include whistleblower protection related to the implementation and enforcement of

specific laws, including the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the Fair Labor

Standards Act of 1938, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act of 1972, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Safe

Drinking Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act. In many cases, employees may

file retaliation complaints with the U.S. Secretary of Labor or in federal district court. In

addition, certain retaliatory actions might be covered by federal anti-discrimination law

and a complaint may be filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC).

Other federal whistleblowing laws for employees in specific industries include the Dodd-

Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the FDA Food Safety

Modernization Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, the Migrant

and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and

the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1987. In addition, other federal

protections for federal employees include the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and

the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, with specified grievance

procedures for retaliation.

Additional federal resources include:

The Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs at the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) receives and investigates complaints in relation to many

of these laws. However, only some apply to public employees in state and local

government.

If an employee experiences retaliation due to a report of certain unsafe working

conditions, such as a threat related to asbestos, pipeline safety, or public transportation,

the worker can file a report with OSHA. Similarly, employees can also complain to

OSHA if you are retaliated against due to reporting unsafe cargo, unsafe drinking water,

other types of pollution, illegal waste disposal or violations of the Affordable Care Act.

A whistleblower may not file an OSHA complaint anonymously. Reports may be filed:

• Online: osha.gov/whistleblower/WBComplaint.html

• Email: [email protected]

• Mail:

Assistant Regional Administrator for WPP

U.S. Department of Labor – OSHA

300 Fifth Avenue, Room 1280

Seattle, Washington 98104

• Phone: 206-757-6700

Note: If an employee experiences unsafe working conditions, or believes an employer

is not following OSHA standards, the employee may file a complaint with Oregon OSHA

and request an inspection. Employees do not have to know whether a specific OSHA

standard has been violated in order to file a complaint. The complaint should be filed as

soon as possible after noticing the hazard or lack of compliance because OSHA

citations may only be issued for violations that currently exist or existed in the past six

months.

• Online: www4.cbs.state.or.us/exs/osha/hazrep

• Contact any Oregon OSHA field office via phone, fax, email or letter.

Implementation of Statutes and Rules Under 659A.200 and 659A.224, Including

Relevant Case Law

Several court decisions provide additional clarity around the application of whistleblower

protections provided under Oregon law. ORS 659A.200 to 650A.224.

• Whistleblower protections apply to public employees. A public employee is a

person employed by or under contract with the state or any agency of or political

subdivision in the state; or (b) employed by or under contract with any person

authorized to act on behalf of the state or agency of the state or subdivision in

the state, with respect to control, management or supervision of any employee.

OAR 839-010-0010.

• In Dinicola v. State of Oregon the Oregon Court of Appeals elaborated that

“employed by” means having one’s personal services engaged or used by an

employer, with the employer reserving the right to control the means by which

such service is or will be performed. “Under contract with” means providing

services to an employer, but not being subject to the employer’s control over the

method by which services are provided. However, if the employee is on paid

leave, and a private party reimburses the state for the salary, the employee is not

considered employed by the state for the purposes of the whistleblower

protection law. Dinicola v. State of Oregon.

• Whistleblower protections apply to employees whose work for their employer

routinely includes disclosure of information that the employee reasonably

believes is evidence of a violation of law, mismanagement or gross waste of

funds. Harper v. Mt. Hood Community College.

• Whistleblower protections also apply to disclosures of covered information made

to the respective agency itself. Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery; Folz v. State of

Oregon.

• Protected disclosures must reveal previously unknown conduct. Reporting

publicly available information does not constitute a protected disclosure.

Recommendations on how to resolve internal personnel issues do not constitute

protected disclosures. Folz v. State of Oregon.

• Court decisions affirm administrative rules on whistleblower protections and

definitions (OAR 839-010-0010): Mismanagement means serious agency

misconduct having the effect of actually — or potentially — undermining the

agency's ability to fulfill its public mission. Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery; Hall v.

Douglas County.

Other Notable Cases

Under the federal anti-discrimination statutes in employment, Title VII of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act, and Oregon counterpart laws have provisions that prohibit a covered

employer from retaliating against an employee for complaining about alleged

discriminatory employment practices. The complaining individual is sometimes referred

to as a “whistleblower.” The U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v. North American

Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011), found that a complaining party’s family member or

friend who falls within the “zone of interests” is also protected from retaliation based on

the whistleblowing activities. In this case, Thompson and Thompson’s fiancée at the

time were both employees of North American Stainless, LP. Thompson’s fiancée filed a

sex discrimination complaint against the employer with the EEOC.

The employer fired Thompson but not his fiancée who actually filed the charge. An

“aggrieved person” is interpreted broadly in an EEOC whistleblowing case.

OTHER RESOURCES FOR

EMPLOYEES

The Oregon Secretary of State has designated the Oregon Audits Division to receive

reports of waste, inefficiency or abuse by state agencies, state employees, or people

under contract with state agencies, as part of their administration of the Government

Waste Hotline.

The hotline can be contacted through the following channels:

• Toll free phone, 24/7: 800-336-8218

• FAX: 503-378-6767

• Mail: Oregon Audits Division, Government Waste Hotline, 255 Capitol Street NE,

Suite 500, Salem, Oregon 97310

• Online: oregonsos.alertline.com

The identity of anyone calling the Government Waste Hotline or otherwise making a

report under ORS 177.170 is confidential per ORS 177.180(2). Whistleblowers should

make sure to mark written communications as “confidential.”

Based on reports, the Government Waste Hotline of the Audits Division conducts

special investigations regarding potential misuse of state resources. These

investigations may occur at state agencies, or may involve local governments or

contractors receiving state or federal funds from state agencies.

CONTACTING BOLI

The mission of BOLI is to protect employment rights, advance employment

opportunities and protect access to housing and public accommodations free from

discrimination.

The four principal duties of BOLI are to:

• Protect the rights of workers and individuals to equal, non-discriminatory

treatment through the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws that apply to

workplaces, housing and public accommodations;

• Encourage and enforce compliance with state laws relating to wages, hours,

terms and conditions of employment;

• Educate and train employers to understand and comply with both wage and hour

and civil rights law; and

• Promote the development of a highly skilled, competitive workforce in Oregon

through the apprenticeship program and through partnerships with government,

labor, business and educational institutions.

If you have questions about any of these areas, please feel free to contact us.

oregon.gov/boli

[email protected]

971-673-0761

RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS

BOLI’s Technical Assistance for Employers Program oregon.gov/boli/employers works

to help public agencies, non-profits and other employers stay compliant so that they can

avoid potential violations in the first place. We can help employers navigate retaliation

and other civil rights protection through our confidential employment assistance hotline

and email resources. In addition, we can provide low cost, on-site seminars customized

to help your workforce and management team understand Oregon’s regulatory

requirements and civil rights laws.

• Technical Assistance Hotline: 971-361-8400

• Email Resource for Employer Questions: [email protected].

Thank you!