Oregon Expands Protections for Immigration Status in the Workplace

Oregon House Bill 4111, effective June 5, 2026, reflects Oregon’s continued shift toward protecting immigrant workers by limiting how a change in immigration status can be used in the workplace and how undocumented status can be used in litigation, while explicitly integrating these protections into the state’s existing employment discrimination framework under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 659A. The law creates a clear prohibition on employers’ taking adverse action against employees who update—or attempt to update—their “personal information” following a lawful change in work authorization status, effectively recognizing such updates as a protected activity. This measure is designed to ensure that workers are not penalized for maintaining compliance with federal law or for improving their legal status, while still preserving employers’ ability to meet federal employment verification requirements. 

While the phrase “personal information following a lawful change in work authorization status” is not defined, a similar law in California, which also uses the phrase “personal information,” provides insight into the meaning of this phrase. In 2015, the California legislature amended the law to define “personal information” as “name” and “Social Security number.” The California amendment is instructive for how Oregon might apply meaning to the phrase. 

Legal Effects of New Legislation

At a practical level, the statute places increased emphasis on consistent and neutral administration of onboarding, reverification, and personnel record processes, as routine immigration-related compliance activities may now give rise to discrimination or retaliation claims if not carefully managed. Employers should ensure that policies, documentation practices, and training clearly distinguish between lawful compliance measures and actions that could be perceived as punitive or inconsistent. The change underscores the importance of administering personnel record processes in a neutral and consistent manner, but it also signals a broader legislative intent to encourage employees to engage with compliance processes without fear of reprisal. 

An example of a person/employee receiving a lawful change in work authorization status is when an undocumented employee receives an Employment Authorization Document (EAD or work permit) through a U visa. That person was previously undocumented but may have provided their employer with a fraudulent green card to secure employment. As another example, an undocumented employee may receive a green card through marriage to a U.S. citizen or through an adult child petition for their parent’s green card. In both examples, the employee has changed their status and has received their own Social Security card and/or has their true name on their EAD or green card.

Why does the legislature want to provide this protection to employees? Without such legislation, an employer that has and enforces an “Honesty” policy, may lawfully discharge the employee for previously being dishonest in providing a fraudulent document(s), false name, or false Social Security number. Although many employers refrain from enforcing any “Honesty” policy against anyone presenting papers that appear genuine, there are still some employers that want to enforce their “Honesty” policy. This statute effectively prevents enforcement in circumstances such as those described here.

Legislation’s Effect on Litigation

HB 4111 also has significant implications for employment litigation by sharply limiting the admissibility of immigration status evidence in civil proceedings. The law generally bars such evidence unless it is essential to proving a claim or defense, and requires advance confidential motions and in camera judicial review before such evidence may be introduced. Additionally, because these protections are incorporated into ORS Chapter 659A, claims arising from the statute are litigated within Oregon’s established employment discrimination framework, including access to compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, and jury trials. Together, these changes are likely to reduce the role of immigration status in discovery and trial strategy while increasing employer exposure under traditional retaliation and discrimination theories, placing a premium on well-documented, compliance-driven employment decisions and careful consideration in advance of evidentiary issues related to immigration status in litigation.

Employers are encouraged to consult with employment and immigration counsel if these issues arise at work or in litigation.