An Oregon labor bill is making strides after shedding provisions allowing judges to consider proxies, such as retirement eligibility and work years, in age discrimination lawsuits.

The change comes as a relief to the Oregon Farm Bureau, which feared House Bill 3187’s original language effectively made age “a special category above all other protected classes.”

The organization worried this change would disrupt employment law and increase liability risks “across all industries — especially agriculture.”

To support age discrimination claims in court, the proposal initially allowed salary, years of employment and eligibility for retirement to serve as proxies for a worker’s life span.

Proponents argued such proxies are necessary because age discrimination lawsuits are otherwise difficult to prove.

“Courts are often forced to dismiss these cases even when there is obvious but not explicit age discrimination,” said Rep. Nathan Sosa, D-Hillsboro, a chief sponsor of the bill.

Discrimination based on age was once broadly interpreted, much as it is for sex and race, until a 2008 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the legal definition, said Cathy Ventrell-Monseees, an attorney specializing in age discrimination litigation.

“The decision really upended settled law,” she said.

In that case, the Supreme Court held that an adverse employment decision based on pension status did not amount to age discrimination, even if it happened to disadvantage an older worker.

Without a more specific definition of what constitutes discrimination “because of age,” Oregon courts must rely on the narrow definition applied in federal court, which HB 3187 aimed to correct, said Ventrell-Monsees.

Under the bill’s original version, state courts could consider proxies for age, similarly to how pregnancy is a proxy for sex and certain hair styles are a proxy for race, she said.

However, critics of the bill argued the proxies for race and sex are much more specific than those proposed for age in HB 3187.

“H.R. staff is not going to be able to navigate something this complex,” said Paloma Sparks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Oregon Business & Industry organization, referring to human resources departments.

Opponents also claimed the bill would contradict the Oregon Equal Pay Act, under which differences in compensation must be based on legitimate reasons, including experience.

The original language of HB 3187 would prohibit employers from considering length of service, even though it must be considered under the Equal Pay Act, said Anthony Smith, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business.

“We can’t set them up for impossible decisions that result in breaking the law no matter what decision they make,” he said.

After the controversial proxy language was removed from HB 3187, groups such as the Oregon Farm Bureau and Oregon Business & Industry dropped their opposition to the proposal, which has passed the House. The Senate Labor and Business Committee has recommended approving the bill, which is scheduled for a Senate floor vote on May 13.

With the proxy language eliminated, the bill now prohibits employers from asking about the birthdays and graduation dates of job candidates before holding the first interview or making an offer of conditional employment.

The proposal would still allow employers to later confirm such information to ensure the “applicant meets bona fide occupational qualification” or otherwise meet regulatory requirements.

Though the revised version of HB 3187 does not address all the scenarios of age discrimination that workers may encounter, it’s a meaningful step in the right direction, said Andrea Meyer, government relations director for AARP Oregon, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons.

“This bill will help older applicants get their foot in the door,” she said.