No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed BOLI's final order finding that the store owner violated Oregon's disability discrimination statute by refusing service to a customer with a disability accompanied by service dogs, and upheld the $60,000 damages award.
Johnson v. Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries
What Happened
A customer with a disability who used service dogs was refused service at Duck Stop Market. The store owner did not allow the customer to enter with their service animals. The customer filed a complaint claiming disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under Oregon law.
What the Court Decided
The Oregon Court of Appeals sided with the customer. The court confirmed that Duck Stop Market violated Oregon's disability discrimination law by refusing service. The court upheld a $60,000 damages award to compensate the customer for the harm caused.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling strengthens protections for people with disabilities. It confirms that businesses cannot deny service based on disability status or the presence of service animals. While this case involved a customer rather than an employee, it demonstrates Oregon courts take disability rights seriously and will impose significant financial penalties on businesses that discriminate. The substantial damages award signals that discrimination violations carry real consequences, encouraging employers and business owners to properly accommodate people with disabilities.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.