Employers in Oregon are facing new restrictions in hiring when it comes to applicants’ ages, thanks to House Bill 3187. To reduce the opportunity for age-based discrimination, the law prohibits employers from requiring or requesting disclosure of certain age-related information, including such able to serve as a proxy for age, while applicants are in the beginning phases of a hiring process.

This requirement applies to employers, prospective employers, and employment agencies. The prohibited information includes the applicant’s age, date of birth, dates that the applicant attended an educational institution, and dates that the applicant graduated from an educational institution.

This information is not prohibited outright but is instead subject to a timing limitation. For organizations that do not conduct job interviews, this information is prohibited until after they make a conditional offer of employment. For organizations that do conduct job interviews, this information is prohibited until after an initial interview is completed.

The narrow exception to this prohibition is when the information is required to confirm that the applicant meets bona fide occupational qualifications, or to comply with any provision of a federal, state or local law, rule or regulation.

Employers in Oregon have long understood that age is a protected category, and that employment and hiring decisions should not generally include consideration of age or reference to it. These recent changes acknowledge that certain application information, such as date of birth or graduation date, effectively provide the same or similar information, and can lead to hiring decisions that are discriminatory, or can lead to stereotypes based on age.

To the extent that the information can still be requested at a later stage of the hiring process, this gives the applicant the opportunity for a conditional job offer without consideration of age-related information, or the opportunity to be evaluated on the merits of an initial interview, prior to consideration of such information. This is an effort to curtail the likelihood of such stereotypes resulting in prejudging.

As an immediate step, employers should check their application materials to ensure that standardized forms or online submissions do not request age, date of birth, or educational institution attendance and graduation dates. When employers make use of recruiters or similar services, it is worth checking that they, too, are complying.

For those individuals who are involved in the hiring process, such as human resources professionals who might reach out to candidates for information or scheduling, or employees who participate in interview panels or processes, they should also be instructed and trained that they should not ask for such information during their pre-offer communications or during an initial interview.

Managers who regularly conduct interviews may already have the muscle memory to avoid certain topics, whereas other employees who may be asked to participate in interview panels on an infrequent or one-off basis may require more careful instruction and explanation. For example, the natural course of conversation in an interview may result in an employee noting an educational institution and stating, “I went to the same university; what year were you there?!” This seemingly innocuous point of connection may result in an unintended inquiry that violates the statute.

If a candidate offers such information of their own accord, there has been no resulting violation by the employer or employment agency. In particular, candidates may be used to submitting resumes that default to inclusion of attendance or graduation dates. Employers may consider revising job advertisements and requisition materials to note that candidates are asked to provide a resume but need not include dates of attendance or graduation. When a voluntary disclosure is made verbally, employers should document that the information was shared by the applicant without request or prompt.

The bill adds the statutory protection to the existing construct of ORS 659A.030, which focuses on unlawful discrimination in employment. Violations of this statute generally permit an individual a private right of action to bring a suit seeking both damages and attorney’s fees.

The bill’s effective date is 91 days after the date on which the legislative assembly adjourns, which was June 27, 2025. These requirements are therefore slated to take effect on September 26, 2025.

Shayda Le is a Barran Liebman partner. She advises employers on a wide range of employment issues and litigation.