Oregon Court Rejects Per-Paycheck Penalties for Unlawful Wage Deductions

On September 10, 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s individual and class action wage violation claims in Winn v. Blakeslee Vineyard Estate, Inc., holding that the $200 statutory damages outlined in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) §652.615 are awarded per category of statutory violations, not per paycheck, and that the employer’s successful cure under Rule 32 I of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP) barred the plaintiff’s class claims.

Background

The plaintiff worked as an hourly employee at the defendant winery’s tasting room for eight months in 2022. After resigning, the plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and a class of all affected employees, alleging that the defendant improperly appropriated employees’ tip money, failed to compensate employees for all hours worked, and improperly deducted bonuses from employees’ paychecks. The defendant moved to dismiss under ORCP 32 I, Oregon’s class action cure provision, arguing it had cured the violations by notifying all affected employees of the alleged violations and its plans to remedy them. After initially finding the employer’s ORCP 32 I notice deficient, the trial court allowed the defendant to supplement the notice and ultimately dismissed the class claims because the defendant had adequately cured the alleged violations.

Holding

On appeal, the central question concerned the measure of statutory damages under ORS 652.615, which provides, “There is hereby created a private cause of action for a violation of ORS 652.610 (3) for actual damages or $200, whichever is greater.” The plaintiff argued that employees were entitled to recover the statutory minimum of $200 for every paycheck containing an unlawful deduction. The defendant argued, and the trial court agreed, that the statute’s $200 minimum recovery applied per category or type of violation, not per paycheck or per individual deduction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s interpretation, reasoning that the phrase “a violation” in ORS 652.615 did not mean each paycheck or each unlawful deduction. Instead, the statutory context and legislative history supported that the legislature intended the $200 amount not to function as a “particularly punitive penalty,” but rather to “compensate employees while keeping costs manageable for employers.” The court noted that when the legislature intends penalties to accrue per pay period or per occurrence, it says so expressly, as it did elsewhere in Oregon’s wage statutes, e.g., ORS 652.100, which prohibits falsifying time records and provides a remedy for “each” time the employer engages in such wrongful conduct. 

The Court of Appeals also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that her request for an accounting of the tips and gratuities received and paid out constituted equitable relief outside the reach of ORCP 32 I. The court determined the action was one for damages, making ORCP 32 I’s cure-and-dismiss procedure applicable, and that because the defendant had provided the required notice and offered the remedy the court determined was legally owed, dismissal of the class claims was proper.

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s challenge of the dismissal of her individual claims for want of prosecution. After the class claims were dismissed, the trial court ordered plaintiff to submit a stipulated order setting trial date, which the plaintiff did not do, and then issued a “notice of intent to dismiss” advising the plaintiff that the court would dismiss her case if she took no further action. When the plaintiff took no action, the trial court dismissed the individual claims. The trial court then denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the judgment under ORCP 71. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no excusable neglect based on the amount of time that passed between the dismissal notice and the general judgment of dismissal.

Takeaway for Employers

The majority’s decision provides a strong defense for Oregon employers against plaintiffs seeking to multiply statutory damages based on every paycheck affected by the same deduction practice, and therefore substantially reduces exposure in wage deduction cases. Employers should also keep in mind that if they discover wage violations, they should promptly evaluate whether ORCP 32 I may be used to cure the issue before class litigation gains momentum.