Oregon Court Says Asking for a Raise Is Protected

On April 1, 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals held in Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp., Case No. A185106, that an employee’s request for a raise is protected activity under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) ORS 659A.355. The court ruled that the statute’s wage-discussion protections are not limited to coworker pay conversations or pay-equity complaints but also
The post Oregon Court Says Asking for a Raise Is Protected appeared first on VensureHR. 

On April 1, 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals held in Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp., Case No. A185106, that an employee’s request for a raise is protected activity under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) ORS 659A.355.

The court ruled that the statute’s wage-discussion protections are not limited to coworker pay conversations or pay-equity complaints but also cover direct employee-to-employer wage discussions, including requests for a raise.

This update applies to Oregon employers, and the case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.

What Employers Need to Do

• Train supervisors and managers to treat raise requests and salary negotiations as potentially protected activity under ORS 659A.355, regardless of whether the request involves a pay-equity or discrimination concern.

• Review documentation and decision-making processes around discipline and termination to ensure that actions taken close in time to a compensation request are supported by clear, independent reasons.

• Ensure that denials of raise requests are communicated professionally and documented, because the court confirmed that denying a raise is lawful, the risk arises only if the employer retaliates because the employee made the request.

• Establish a consistent internal process for handling raise requests, including who reviews them and how decisions are communicated, so that outcomes are based on documented business criteria rather than individual manager discretion.

Overview

What the Court Held

• The court held that ORS 659A.355 protects an employee who has “inquired about, discussed, or disclosed in any manner the wages of the employee or of another employee.” The court concluded that this language plainly includes an employee asking about their own pay, including a request for a wage increase.

• The court rejected two narrow readings advanced by the employer:
  • That the law applies only to wage discussions among coworkers.
  • That the law applies only where there is a pay-equity or protected-class discrimination issue.

• The court said the statute’s only express limitation is in subsection (2), which addresses certain unauthorized disclosures of other employees’ wage information by employees who have access to that information as part of their job. That limitation did not apply here.

The Facts

• The employee, a software engineer, asked for a promotion and salary increase, later requested an additional $5,000 and future consideration for a director-level role, and was terminated a few days later. She alleged the termination was retaliation for her wage inquiry.

Why the Trial Court Was Reversed

• The trial court had relied on O’Donnell v. Ameresco, Inc., a 2024 federal district court case, and treated ORS 659A.355 as applying only when there was a discrimination-related pay inequity issue.
• The Court of Appeals rejected that approach, explaining that O’Donnell involved a different type of claim, a common law wrongful discharge claim, not a statutory retaliation claim under ORS 659A.355. The court also noted that federal court interpretations of Oregon statutes are not binding on Oregon courts.

Legislative History Supported Broader Reading

• Although the court said the statutory text was already clear, it also reviewed the legislative history of House Bill 2007 (2015). That history included statements confirming the law was intended to protect not just coworker wage discussions but also employee-to-employer wage discussions, including asking for a raise.

Important Limitation

• The court made clear that an employer does not violate the statute merely by denying a raise request. The legal problem is retaliation: discharging, demoting, suspending, or otherwise disadvantaging an employee for asking for a raise.

Why This Matters

This ruling confirms that ORS 659A.355 extends beyond discussions of coworker pay. Routine compensation conversations, including raise requests, can support a retaliation claim if followed by an adverse action.

For employers, the practical impact is that timing, documentation, and decision-making around discipline or termination after a raise request carry heightened legal risk.

Key Risks for Employers

• Treating Raise Requests as Unprotected: After this ruling, any direct employee-to-employer wage discussion, including asking for a raise, can be the basis for a retaliation claim if an adverse action follows.

• Adverse Actions Close in Time to a Pay Request: Terminations, demotions, or other negative actions taken shortly after an employee asks for a raise may create an inference of retaliation, even if the employer had independent reasons.

• Supervisor misunderstanding of the law’s scope: The statute does not require a pay-equity complaint or a discrimination allegation to trigger protection; a simple raise request is enough.

• Inconsistent handling of raise requests across managers: Without a uniform process, differences in how managers respond to similar requests could support a retaliation claim.

Source References

• Oregon State Court – A185106, Opinion – Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp.

This communication is intended solely for the purpose of conveying information. The present post might incorporate hyperlinks directing readers to websites managed by third-party entities. The inclusion of any links within this communication is meant to serve as points of reference and could encompass opinion articles from various law firms, articles from HR associations, official websites, news releases, and documents of government agencies, and other relevant third-party sources. Vensure has no authority over these external websites and bears no responsibility for their content. Furthermore, Vensure does not endorse the materials present on these websites. The contents of this communication should not be interpreted as legal advice or as a legal standpoint concerning specific facts or scenarios. Nor should it be deemed an exhaustive compilation of facts potentially pertinent to federal, state, or local laws. It is strongly advised that employers solicit legal guidance from an employment attorney when undertaking actions in response to any legal updates provided. This is due to the possibility of future alterations occurring in federal, state, and local laws, regulations, as well as the directives and guidelines issued by governing agencies. These changes may transpire at any given time, potentially rendering certain portions of the content within this update void or inaccurate.

The post Oregon Court Says Asking for a Raise Is Protected appeared first on VensureHR.

 VensureHR