Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc.

Pursuant to ORS 659A.400(2), “public accommodation does not include . . . a local correction facility . . . [or] an institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private.”

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his discrimination suit against Defendant after Defendant did not provide an American Sign Language interpreter while giving health care services to him at the Clackamas County Jail.  Plaintiff assigned error to the Court’s narrow interpretation of the term “public accommodation” pursuant to ORS 659A.142(4). In response, Defendant argued that jail services are not open to the general public and are therefore not public accommodations. Purusuant to ORS 659A.400(2), “public accommodation does not include . . . a local correction facility . . . [or] an institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private.” The Court found that while a jail does have restrictions for its inmates, it is not selective in a way that falls under the “distinctly private” exception to public accommodation provided in ORS 659A.400(2)(e). Further, Defendant was a contracted service provider for the jail and did not fall within “a local correction facility” under ORS 659A.400(2)(d). The Court answered the Ninth Circuit’s certified question by stating “a private contractor providing healthcare services at a county jail is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of ORS 659A.400 and can be subject to liability under ORS 659A.142.”