Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

It's called Oregon's Little Davis-Bacon Act. It requires contractors and subcontractors on public works jobs over $25,000 to pay the "prevailing wage." An Oregon State Agency surveys geographic areas for each occupation and publishes the wage rates. Oregon contractors promise to pay these rates when they bid on public works jobs. If the employer does not pay the wages, then, in effect, the contractor steals from workers and from taxpayers.

I received information from a few workers of a contractor that their employer is breaking the law in more than one way. Among other things, the contractor misclassified their work so it could pay them less. For example if the worker was a welder but the employer paid the worker the lower wage of a laborer, then it would violate the prevailing wage law. (Here's a list of some job classifications.)

Workers must act fast if they want to make a prevailing wage claim. The law (ORS 279C.855) instructs workers to file a claim against the contractor's bond. To do that, the worker must provide notice within 180 days "after the day the person last provided labor." A statute, ORS 279C.605, sets out what the notice should say.

The guys who contacted me have many other issues with their employer, and I look forward to helping them.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Oregon's Senator Jeff Merkley has been a champion for the employment rights of breastfeeding moms. Among his accomplishments during his first term is the new U.S. law that requires larger employers to permit nursing mothers the opportunity to express breast milk during work hours. This post discusses the rights of nursing mothers under Oregon's law and U.S law.

Oregon Law Protecting the Rights of Nursing Mothers at Work.

Then Oregon House Leader Merkley oversaw passage of Oregon's law in 2007. ORS 653.077 requires employers of 25 or more employees to allow mothers nursing children aged 18 months or younger the time and space to express breast milk. Moms may take up to 30 (unpaid) minutes for every four hours of work, but should try to combine this with other breaks or meal periods. The employer must make reasonable efforts to provide a space, other than a bathroom stall, to express milk. Reasonable means reasonable in light of the financial burdens and other issues peculiar to the employer.

Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries provided this summary of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS) Concerning Rest Periods for the Expression of Breast Milk. BOLI's formal rule on breast milk rest periods is OAR 839-020-0051.

Federal Law on Expression of Breast Milk at Work

Senator Merkley was responsible for adding workplace rights for nursing mothers in the massive federal health care act, which became law in March, 2010. It's Section 4207, and it is short, if you want to read it. The U.S. law applies to employers of 50 or more employees, and covers moms for 12 months after delivery, not 18 months as in Oregon. Like Oregon's law, sending moms to the bathroom is not good enough. Employers must offer a better place. Regulations are not final as of this date, but the Department of Labor provided guidance in the meantime.

I got to know Jeff Merkley when we were both working to elect Democrats in Oregon in 2004 and 2006. I could not be more proud of an elected leader who is working hard for public policy that makes sense. Breast feeding offers health benefits to children and to moms. His law will save money in future health care costs, and it will reduce future time lost from work for other health issues. Even though employers might balk at the new requirement, in the long run, it will save them money and help them retain good, loyal workers.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Attorney
503-665-4234

Child Passenger Safety Week begins September 19, 2010. Motor vehicle collisions remain the leading cause of death for children. Proper restraint can save lives and reduce the severity of injuries.

Yet, in Oregon, 58% of children who need to be in booster seats are not. For children under age four, although 99% of them are in child safety seats, nearly 3 out of 4 seats are not used properly. This post is for adults who want to get it right and protect the children they love.

There are four stages of restraints for children: rear facing for infants, forward-facing seats for children under 4, booster seats for under 4'9", and seat belts. This week parents can get a FREE CHECK UP on their child safety seats to make sure everything is correct. Check online at or call 877-793-2608. You can see videos on child safety seats and booster seats. An easy and clear demonstration for rear facing seats and for forward facing seats. But, you might as well take advantage the free clinics if you have the time.

I have been pleased to work with safety professionals to pass laws in Oregon requiring booster seats and other protections. However, unless people know the laws and know how to do things right, kids will get disabled and killed unnecessarily. Take the time this week to make sure you are doing right by the children in your life, whether they are your children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

Some corporations must lay off workers when business slides. However, Oregon corporations may not use a reduction in force as cover for age discrimination or wrongful terminations. When does "downsize" or "right size" become illegal "young size?"

First, age discrimination is a big problem in Oregon and throughout the nation. In 2009, the EEOC received almost 23,000 charges of age discrimination and recovered $72 million in benefits for employees. Oregon's law against age discrimination protects both younger and older workers.

Right now, I'm helping a 50+ man who was replaced by someone in his 30s. The company has boasted, nationally, that it is coping with the recession by "right sizing" the firm. However, everyone it fired, who we know of, has been older, and that's illegal.

Well, you say, "It's the older workers who make the biggest money, so it makes sense to cut them." Well, the law does not work that way. A neutral policy (firing the high earners, for example) constitutes age discrimination if it impacts older workers disproportionately. That's called "disparate impact."

What a company should do is what my brother did for a large international corporation. As their human resources manager, he reviewed the proposed terminations and created a spreadsheet, which included the age of the workers. He alerted the foreign owners that United States law -- the Age Discrimination in Employment Act -- required the company to avoid impacting older workers.

So, today's lesson: Oregon employers must take care to avoid discriminating against older workers during lay offs or reductions in force. If employers violate the law, then Oregon employees need to educate them though an age discrimination lawsuit.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Jurors awarded $677 million against a nursing home because it understaffed its skilled nursing facilities. In Oregon, I have seen the same thing, time and again. These companies make big promises of excellent care and abundant services for assisted living facilities. Yet, they consistently run understaffed. Also, I've seen Oregon facilities underpay their staff and then get rid of the most caring staff members who actually complain about the problems.

We often think about these cases in terms of malpractice or abuse. However, I now see it as fraud: the corporations that operate the homes promise services that they simply cannot deliver with the staff they are willing to hire and pay.

Oregon law protects both the residents of homes and nurses and staff who blow the whistle. I love to represent victims and whistleblower employees because I think, hope and pray that once the companies factor in the costs of lawsuits, they will decide it is cheaper to hire more workers and provide good care.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

Yesterday, the news broke the that Boy Scouts of America settled six sex abuse cases. The pressure to settle came from Oregon litigation: both a trial in April and another scheduled for trial in October. The April jury verdict included an award for punitive damages. Although the settlements with Boy Scout abuse victims are confidential, The Oregonian reported that the State of Oregon was paid $2.25 million for punitive damages.

We can only hope that the lawsuits will encourage all organizations responsible for children to take that responsibility seriously. As Oregon Attorney Kelly Clark opined about why the Catholic Church is safer these days, "It's not primarily because the bishops got the Holy Spirit, that's because the bishops got sued."

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234