Oregon D.O.C Agrees to Pay $49 Million to People Incarcerated During COVID-19

After more than six years of litigation, the State of Oregon has agreed to pay $49 million to resolve a landmark class action lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of people incarcerated in Oregon prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If approved by the federal court, the settlement will compensate both the families of individuals who died from COVID-19 while in Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) custody and the more than 5,000 people who contracted the virus while incarcerated.

The settlement represents one of the largest prison COVID-19 settlements in the country and serves as another reminder that correctional institutions remain accountable for protecting the constitutional rights of those in their custody—even during a public health emergency.

How the Settlement Will Be Distributed

According to the proposed settlement:

• Approximately $33.1 million will be distributed to the estates of 38 incarcerated people who died from COVID-19, resulting in roughly $871,000 per estate before attorney fees and costs.

• Nearly $16 million will be distributed among more than 5,000 people who contracted COVID-19 while incarcerated, with payments ranging from approximately $1,000 to $41,000, depending on the severity of their illness.

  
  

Approximately one-quarter of those eligible for compensation reportedly remain incarcerated.

The settlement will initially be funded with $10 million from Oregon's self-insurance fund. The remaining funds must be approved by the Oregon Legislature during the 2027 legislative session. If lawmakers decline to appropriate the remaining funds, the settlement will not take effect and the litigation will resume.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed in April 2020 by the Oregon Justice Resource Center on behalf of medically vulnerable incarcerated individuals. The plaintiffs alleged that Oregon prison officials failed to take reasonable measures to protect incarcerated people from COVID-19 despite knowing the extraordinary risks posed by overcrowded correctional facilities.

The complaint alleged that prison officials failed to implement adequate mitigation measures, exposing thousands of incarcerated individuals to an unreasonable risk of serious illness and death in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

As the litigation progressed, the class expanded to include thousands of individuals who contracted COVID-19 while incarcerated, as well as the estates of those who died from the virus.

More Than Just a Settlement

While the headlines understandably focus on the $49 million payout, the legal history behind this case is equally significant.

Throughout the litigation, the plaintiffs secured important victories, including court orders requiring Oregon to prioritize COVID-19 vaccinations for incarcerated individuals before vaccines became widely available to the general public.

More importantly, the litigation survived repeated legal challenges. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged constitutional violations and rejected the defendants' qualified immunity arguments at that stage of the case, allowing the litigation to proceed.

Following that decision, the State sought review by the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling. Before the Supreme Court decided whether it would hear the case, however, the parties reached this proposed settlement.

While a settlement does not constitute an admission of liability, it reflects the significant litigation risks both sides faced after years of litigation and appellate review.

Why Oregon Chose to Settle

Governor Tina Kotek stated that resolving the litigation was the most financially responsible course of action for the State, citing the substantial costs associated with continuing the case through trial and any further appeals.

At the same time, Governor Kotek acknowledged the hardships experienced by incarcerated individuals and the families who lost loved ones during the pandemic, describing the settlement as an opportunity for healing and closure after one of the most difficult chapters in Oregon's correctional history.

Why This Matters Beyond Oregon

This settlement carries significance well beyond the State of Oregon.

For incarcerated people pursuing claims arising from COVID-19, the Oregon litigation demonstrates that courts remain willing to carefully scrutinize correctional officials' response to known health risks. Before the case settled, the Ninth Circuit permitted the plaintiffs' constitutional claims to proceed and rejected the defendants' qualified immunity arguments at that stage of the litigation. Rather than obtaining a complete dismissal, the State ultimately chose to resolve the case through a $49 million settlement.

For individuals incarcerated within the Ninth Circuit who believe they suffered harm because correctional officials failed to take reasonable measures to protect them from COVID-19 or failed to provide constitutionally adequate medical care after infection, the decisions issued throughout this litigation may provide persuasive authority depending on the facts of their own cases.

It is important to recognize that this case involved state prison officials and was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Prisoners pursuing claims against federal officials generally proceed under Bivens (where available) or the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). While the legal vehicles differ, the underlying Eighth Amendment principles governing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs remain highly relevant.

The Oregon litigation also reinforces an important point: despite recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the expansion of Bivens into new contexts, courts continue to recognize that claims fitting within established Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference principles remain viable when supported by sufficient factual allegations. Defendants are not automatically entitled to qualified immunity simply because a claim arises from the COVID-19 pandemic.

For incarcerated individuals and their advocates, the opinions issued throughout this litigation deserve careful study. They provide valuable guidance regarding deliberate indifference, qualified immunity, correctional officials' constitutional obligations during a public health emergency, and the evidence necessary to survive dismissal.

A Broader Lesson

The COVID-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges for correctional systems across the country. Correctional staff, medical providers, administrators, and incarcerated individuals all faced extraordinary circumstances that evolved rapidly as scientific understanding of the virus developed.

At the same time, constitutional protections do not disappear during a public health crisis.

The Eighth Amendment requires correctional officials to take reasonable measures to protect incarcerated people from substantial risks of serious harm and to provide constitutionally adequate medical care when serious medical needs arise. Whether those obligations were met depends on the specific facts of each case.

The Oregon settlement serves as a reminder that courts will continue to examine those facts carefully, and when plaintiffs present sufficient evidence that constitutional standards may have been violated, those claims can survive dismissal and, in some cases, result in substantial recoveries.

Practice Tip for Prisoners and Advocates

If your COVID-19 case arises within the Ninth Circuit, consider reviewing the district court and Ninth Circuit decisions in Maney v. Brown to determine whether their analysis of deliberate indifference, qualified immunity, and correctional officials' constitutional duties applies to your case.

Although every case turns on its own facts, Maney has become one of the most significant prison COVID-19 decisions in the Ninth Circuit and may provide persuasive authority where the legal and factual circumstances are comparable.

As always, litigants should carefully compare the facts of their own case to the applicable precedent and consult legal counsel whenever possible.