House committee hears bill to strengthen workplace protections and accommodation guidance for people with disabilities

The House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards heard testimony March 3 on House Bill 2742, a measure sponsors said would strengthen workplace accommodation guidance and protections for people with disabilities and expand anti‑discrimination coverage for local government services.

Representative Travis Nelson told the committee the bill would direct the Bureau of Labor and Industries to provide clearer guidance on reasonable accommodations, establish low‑ or no‑cost mediation services for accommodation disputes, prohibit unnecessary physical job requirements and require union representation in accommodation discussions. He said the bill would also require state agencies and contractors to include inclusive outreach and hiring strategies in affirmative action plans.

Ben Gurewitz of Disability Rights Oregon had intended to testify but was not present in the room; Representative Nelson and other witnesses described the goals as removing barriers to employment and clarifying employer obligations. Supporters said many discrimination claims the committee reviewed in the interim were disability‑related and argued clearer processes would reduce costly disputes.

Business groups raised concerns. Paloma Sparks of Oregon Business & Industry told the committee that mandating free mediation services for all accommodation disputes would be cost‑prohibitive without additional state funding and that reasonable accommodation processes are complex and require individualized back‑and‑forth between employers and employees. Scott Winkels of the League of Oregon Cities said some municipal and public‑safety positions require physical tests or standards (for example, police physical ability tests or public works roles) that cannot reasonably be accommodated; he warned the bill could create new outreach obligations for cities that may raise unfunded‑mandate issues under the state constitution.

Committee members asked how employers would establish essential job duties and how the bill’s language would apply to positions with legitimate physical requirements, such as school aides who must assist heavier students. Witnesses said the bill intends to target situations where employers use generic minimum physical requirements to screen out applicants without connecting the requirement to essential job duties; they acknowledged that determining “reasonable” and “essential” is fact‑specific under existing federal and state law.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 2742; no vote was taken and sponsors said they were working on amendments to address stakeholder concerns.

Why it matters: Supporters called the bill a clarification and enforcement tool to make accommodation processes more transparent and accessible for workers with disabilities; local governments and business groups warned about potential costs, operational impacts on physically demanding jobs and the need to avoid unfunded mandates.

Next steps: Sponsor indicated work on amendments and stakeholder negotiations; committee will consider revised language in a future work session.