Oregon Court Clarifies That Asking for a Raise Is Protected by Wage Transparency Law

In a clarification of Oregon’s wage transparency statute, the Oregon Court of Appeals has held that ORS 659A.355 protects an employee from retaliation for merely asking for a raise, even where no claim of pay inequity or class-based discrimination is alleged. In Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp., 348 Or App 70 (2026), the court rejected a narrow reading of the statute and found that its protections extend beyond coworker wage discussions to include employee‑employer wage negotiations.

The decision reverses a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer and provides important guidance for Oregon employers navigating compensation discussions with employees.

Background

The plaintiff worked as a software engineer for the defendant. In the spring of 2022, she requested both a promotion and a salary increase. After the employer offered her a new title and raise, the plaintiff emailed one of the company’s owners seeking an additional $5,000 increase and future consideration for a director-level role. The following Tuesday—just days after her follow-up email—the company terminated her employment.

The plaintiff sued under ORS 659A.355, alleging that the termination constituted unlawful retaliation based on her inquiry about wages. The employer moved for summary judgment, contending that the statute protects only wage discussions among employees intended to promote pay equity and not individual requests for a raise directed to management.

Although the trial court initially denied the motion, it later reversed course on the eve of trial, relying heavily on the federal district court’s decision in O’Donnell v. Ameresco, Inc., 716 F Supp 3d 1035 (D. Or. 2024), and concluding that ORS 659A.355 does not apply where there is “zero discrimination issue at all.”

The Court of Appeals’ Analysis

The court of appeals framed the issue narrowly: Does ORS 659A.355 protect an employee from adverse action when the employee inquires about their own wages by requesting a raise? The court’s answer was unequivocal—yes.

Plain Text Controls

The court began, as Oregon courts must, with the statutory text. ORS 659A.355(1)(a) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee because the employee has: “[i]nquired about, discussed or disclosed in any manner the wages of the employee or of another employee.” Emphasizing the phrase “the wages of the employee,” the court concluded that the statute’s language plainly encompasses an employee’s inquiry into their own compensation—including a request for a raise. Nothing in the statute limits its reach to coworker discussions or to circumstances involving alleged pay discrimination. Nor did the statutory exception in ORS 659A.355(2), addressing unauthorized disclosures by employees with access to others’ wage information, suggest any narrowing of that protection here.

Rejection of the “Pay Equity Only” Theory

The court expressly rejected the argument—adopted by the trial court—that ORS chapter 659A’s general anti-discrimination purpose limits ORS 659A.355 to pay equity disputes involving protected classes. To the contrary, the court explained that protecting employees who engage in open wage discussions with their employers advances, rather than contradicts, the legislature’s anti-discrimination objectives. Wage transparency, including direct conversations about pay with management, serves as a tool to uncover and prevent unlawful disparities. The court also clarified that O’Donnell was neither binding nor persuasive in this context, noting that it arose in the distinct framework of a common law wrongful discharge claim rather than a statutory retaliation claim under ORS 659A.355.

Legislative History Confirms Broad Protection

Although the court found the statutory text clear, it also concluded that the legislative history reinforced its interpretation. Citing floor debates and committee hearings on House Bill 2007 (2015), the court noted explicit statements from legislators confirming that the statute was intended to protect:

• Employee-to-employer wage discussions, and
• Requests for raises, without fear of discipline or retaliation.

In the court’s words, the legislature chose “wording broad enough to address more than the specific problem that prompted it.”

Practical Takeaways for Employers

The decision serves as an important reminder that, in Oregon:

• Requesting a raise is protected activity under ORS 659A.355.
• Employers may lawfully deny a raise request—but may not retaliate by discharging, demoting, or otherwise disadvantaging the employee because the request was made.
• Retaliation risk exists even in the absence of an alleged pay disparity or protected-class discrimination claim.

The court of appeals emphasized that factual questions may still determine whether an adverse action was because of a wage inquiry. Accordingly, employers should carefully evaluate timing, documentation, and decision‑making processes surrounding discipline or termination following compensation discussions.

Conclusion

Mirkovic establishes clear precedent that Oregon’s wage transparency statute protects more than just conversations among coworkers. It also protects the common conversation between an employee and a boss about pay. How an employer responds to a raise request can matter just as much as whether the employer grants it.