Provides that evidence of a party's or a witness's immigration status is not admissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
HB 4111 makes several changes to Oregon law centered on immigration-related practices in civil litigation, employment, and law enforcement profiling. In civil cases, it generally bars admission of a party’s or witness’s immigration status unless that status is essential to proving a claim or defense, while creating a confidential post-trial process for limited use of removal orders or federal work authorization information when calculating future wage loss or reinstatement-related issues. The bill also requires motions and hearings on immigration-status evidence to be handled confidentially and in camera.
The bill adds a new employment protection making it an unlawful practice for an employer to fire, discriminate against, or retaliate against an employee for updating personal information due to a lawful change in federal employment authorization documentation. It preserves employer compliance with federal verification requirements and limits employer liability where a third-party benefit administrator independently acts on updated information. HB 4111 also amends Oregon’s civil rights enforcement statute, ORS 659A.885, to include the new employment protection among the claims that may be brought in circuit court and to preserve the existing remedies framework for many discrimination and labor-related claims.
In addition, the bill broadens Oregon’s law enforcement profiling definitions by explicitly including immigration status among protected characteristics in the statutes governing profiling and officer-initiated stops. The measure updates the definitions of “profiling” in ORS 131.915 and 131.930 to prohibit targeting based solely on real or perceived immigration status, alongside race, ethnicity, national origin, language, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, homelessness, disability, and other listed traits. The bill takes effect on the 91st day after adjournment of the 2026 regular session.
The overall sentiment in the legislative record appears generally supportive but not unanimous. The bill passed both chambers, but with meaningful opposition in floor votes and a failed Senate motion to substitute a minority report, indicating that while the measure had enough support to become law, it remained politically contested. The committee votes were closer than the final passage votes, suggesting some reservations were addressed through amendments, but the bill still drew opposition on the Senate floor.
The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s treatment of immigration status in civil proceedings and its broader policy implications for employers and law enforcement. Supporters appear to have viewed the measure as a civil rights and anti-discrimination protection for immigrants and workers with changing federal authorization status, while opponents likely objected to limiting the use of immigration status evidence in court or to the expanded restrictions on profiling and employment actions. The final enacted version reflects a compromise that preserves narrow exceptions for essential evidence and federal compliance.
HB 4111 amends Oregon’s evidence rules, employment discrimination law, civil rights enforcement statute, and law enforcement profiling statutes. It creates a new evidentiary rule in ORS chapter 40 limiting when immigration status may be introduced in civil cases, adds a new unlawful employment practice in ORS chapter 659A, and expands the remedies and procedural framework available under ORS 659A.885 to cover that new employment protection. It also revises ORS 131.915 and 131.930 to expressly include immigration status in the definition of profiling, affecting how law enforcement agencies and officers are regulated when making stops or targeting individuals. The bill primarily affects litigants, employers, employees, law enforcement agencies, and people who may be subject to civil claims or profiling based on immigration status.
The bill appears to have had generally favorable support among its sponsors and legislative majorities, but not broad consensus. It passed the House and Senate, yet the recorded votes show substantial minority opposition in both chambers and a failed Senate minority-report motion, indicating that the measure was controversial even as it advanced. The pattern suggests support for immigrant protections and anti-discrimination reforms, balanced against concerns about restricting evidence, employer discretion, and law enforcement practices.
The most notable contention was over whether immigration status should be admissible in civil cases and under what circumstances. Opponents likely viewed the evidentiary limits as too restrictive, while supporters argued they were necessary to prevent unfair prejudice and protect access to justice. A second area of disagreement involved the new employment protection for workers who update their records after lawful changes in federal work authorization, which some may have seen as necessary anti-retaliation protection and others as complicating employer compliance. The profiling provisions also likely drew debate because they explicitly add immigration status to protected categories, affecting police practices and stop-and-search standards.