Oregon Court Expands Protection for Employees Who Ask for a Raise

On April 1, 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion concluding that Oregon’s wage transparency statute protects employees who ask for a raise from protection against discrimination and retaliation. 

In Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp., the plaintiff-employee sought a promotion and a raise.  After being offered a new title and a raise, the employee responded by seeking a larger raise.  She was terminated a few days later and filed a lawsuit claiming retaliation under ORS 659A.355.  Overturning the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals sided with the employee, finding the statutory text of that statute protects employees who inquire about their own wages, by asking for a raise, from adverse action.  ORS 659A.355 states:

The Court found no textual basis for limiting the statute’s protections to requests related to discriminatory pay inequity or discussions with coworkers.  Instead, the Court concluded that an employee simply asking an employer for a raise is an inquiry about “the wages of the employee” and, therefore, protected conduct under the statute.  The Court explained that protecting raise requests promotes the legislature’s goal of preventing discrimination and with the legislative history of the statute that lawmakers intended to protect employees who ask for raises, even if those requests are not framed as discrimination complaints.

The Court clarified a critical limitation in a footnote – employers are not required to grant raises to employees who ask for one.  Denying a raise, by itself, does not violate the statute.  Liability arises only if an employer discharges, demotes, suspends, discriminates, or retaliates against an employee because the employee requests a raise.

What Employers Should Do Now

The Mirkovic decision expands exposure to employers of retaliation claims by employees arising out of routine compensation discussions.  Oregon employers should consider taking the following steps now to reduce risk:

• Train managers that a simple salary negotiation, or request for a raise, may constitute protected activity.
  • Informal reactions by management to a raise request or compensation discussion—particularly negative or reactionary emails or verbal comments—may be used as evidence of retaliatory motive.
  • Train that the request does not need to be associated with a statement or complaint of pay discrimination/inequity.
• Adverse actions taken by the employer that are close in time to a raise request will draw heightened scrutiny.  Therefore, it is critical to document legitimate, non‑retaliatory reasons for adverse employment actions and ensure decision‑makers are insulated from wage‑request animus.
• Review policies and handbooks to ensure wage‑discussion protections are accurately reflected.
• Contact employment counsel if you are unsure of whether a particular comment or request by an employee may be considered “protected” by the statute, or if a contemplated adverse employment action may expose your business to risk.

This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.