July 14, 2026
Index
To go to a specific meeting material, click one of the links below to be taken to where the text begins on this page.
Agenda
Task Force on Removing Barriers to Jury Service
Meeting 6: Juror Compensation Continued Employment-Related Issues
July 14, 2026
Roll Call and Verification of Quorum
- Chair Kimberly McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, Oregon Judicial Department (OJD)
Ratify Prior Meeting Minutes
- Chair McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD
Online Deferrals and Excusals
- Molly Harvis, Statewide Jury Coordinator, Oregon Judicial Department
Juror Compensation Continued
Employment Related Issues
Overview of Barriers and Potential Policy Solutions
- Chair McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD
Where We Are Going From Here
- Chair McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD
Public Comment
Materials
- Prior Meeting Minutes
- Employment Related Statutes and Rules
- General Employment Protections (ORS 10.090)
- Employment Protections Re: Insurance Coverage (ORS 10.092)
- Unemployment Administrative Rules and Enabling Statutes
- OAR 471-030-0120
- ORS 657.155(1)(c)
- Illinois Law Re: Not Having to Work Night Shifts
- California Employer Resources
- Overview of Barriers and Potential Policy Solutions
- Written Public Comment (if any)
Meeting Materials
Prior Meeting Minutes
Draft - Meeting Minutes (to be voted on at the 7/14/26 meeting)
Task Force on Removing Barriers to Jury Service
Date: June 8, 2026
Time: 11:30am-1:00pm
Location: Virtual Via WebEx Webinar
Members in Attendance: Derek Sangston, Chair Kimberly McCullough, Tim Dooley, Honorable Matthew Shirtcliff, Senator James Manning, Jr., Andrew Smith on Behalf of Representative Tom Andersen, Honorable Chanpone Sinlapasai, Royce Williams, Kia Tolbert, Bryan Brock, Nansi López, Keren Farkas
Members Not in Attendance: Honorable Tucker Rossetto, Senator Kim Thatcher, Representative Wallan
Quorum: Yes (9)
Ratify Prior Meeting Minutes
- Chair McCullough asked if anyone had changes to the prior meeting minutes
- Chair McCullough asked if there were objections to ratifying the prior meeting minutes
- Chair McCullough noted the prior meeting minutes were ratified
High-Level Overview to Understand the Universe of Potential Barriers and Brainstorm Policy Ideas for Overcoming Barriers
- Chair McCullough referenced the prior Citizens on Call and Preserving the Future of Jury Trials reports that were previously sent as materials
- Brock noted there are many people who cannot do multi-day jury trials, but in most counties you don’t know how long the jury service will be when you receive a summons
- The majority of cases generally end up being one day
- Brock noted many people summoned seem to think it will be for multiple days and therefore don’t respond or ask to be excused, but when they find out it will likely be for one day they say they can do that
- If there was a way to ask people who would be available for a one-day jury service, we may get more people responding and less saying they can’t serve
- Seems more possible in the criminal rather than civil sphere
- People may be able to afford the financial burden of attending for one day more than they could attending for one week
- Chair McCullough noted ORS 10.107 (i.e., the goal of having jurors serve for one day or one trial)
- Some courts have implemented that, but some have not
- Agreed that where it’s possible to say service will be for one day, it would be helpful to let potential jurors know that
- There's a public education component here in letting people know how often it tends to only be one day
- Tolbert noted a concern that the court/parties don’t necessarily know when the summonses are sent whether it will be one-day, and some trials end up getting cancelled, continued, or resolved at the last minute
- Example: Douglas County assigns jurors to trials randomly on the day of trial
- Unclear how to implement advance notice in practice
- Could implementing new trial court rules make it possible to know further in advance which cases will need jurors?
- We could have public education about how long a trial usually lasts
- Andrew Smith for Representative Andersen
- There's no guarantee how long a trial would last, but we could educate the public by saying something on the summons about how many trials resolve in one day and that, while not guaranteed, it’s likely you would only serve one day
- Is there any risk with putting something informational in the summons?
- Dooley tried to comment but had audio issues
- Judge Shirtcliff noted that Baker County has a jury orientation day where the court explains that if a juror has a scheduling conflict they can let the court know so they won’t need to come for a trial, but that they will still need to check the phone and website for messages from the court
- Would it be possible/legal to have people request to only serve on one-day trials?
- Agreed that noting on summonses that most, but not all, trials, are one-day could potentially help with turnout
- López noted that potentially having an FAQ on the summons about jury service could help give folks a general sense of what to be prepared for and then further detail could be given as people come to the court
- Tolbert cautioned that allowing potential jurors to choose to only be assigned to one-day trials could be problematic
- Could result in only those with the financial means to serve longer than one day being assigned to certain cases, particularly in criminal cases where they may not be the peers of the defendant
- Harvis noted that setting trial expectations can be helpful and that there are some things that could help with that
- Judicial considerations of jury trial certainty and more strict call hearings
- Providing clarity on lengthier trials and reevaluation of length of service in counties with longer terms
- Increasing public knowledge on jury trial expectations
- The Oregon Judicial Department has some information on its jury website on length of service, but not on the summonses
- Chair McCullough noted we can do a deeper dive into the one day/one trial issue and setting expectations around length of service at a future meeting
- Dooley attempted to speak again, but audio issues continued
- Brock suggested educating the public, before they get a summons, as to what jury service entails, its importance, and dissuading common concerns could prepare people for when they do get a summons
- May cost less than increasing juror compensation
- Chair McCullough suggested doing a deeper dive into the public education piece and what a state investment in that could look like
- López noted it’s important to continue discussing the financial burden issue
- Even if people want to participate, it can be a decision between paying for food/gas/etc. and attending jury service
- Having a jury of peers is hard when your peers cannot afford to go
- Interested in looking at innovative ways to improve the financial issue
- We could discuss pilot programs from other states and see if we can learn from those
- Example: Of $1.8 million Oregon provides for juror compensation, $580K was not requested, so if we could build a system that assesses people’s needs so they can participate would make a big difference on what our juries look like across the state
- Would also help identify the daily struggles Oregonians face
- Tolbert agreed that we need public education/outreach about the jury system and post-jury duty feedback and also suggested the task force address:
- Having mock jury trial programs, especially for those who are younger and just receiving their license, which could potentially engage parents too
- Lack of control and long waiting times
- Once someone receives a summons, they could let the court know the best times in that month that they could attend jury duty
- Potentially having an online scheduling platform
- Making it clearer to the public that you can request a deferral/excusal online prior to the day before service
- Online juror qualification questionnaires to let jurors know if it’s a type of case that would be traumatic or triggering for them so they can inform the court in advance
- Staggering jury panel sign-ins to avoid long security/check-in lines
- Uniform Trial Court Rules establishing and addressing unnecessary pretrial concerns beforehand
- Deadlines to resolve cases would be helpful in helping jurors know in advance if they would be serving
- Providing proposed agendas for trial to help jurors know what to expect
- Discuss juror compensation by examining/comparing multiple state frameworks (CA, AZ, FL, OR, MA/CT - Employer Pay-State Pay, NY - Wage Replacement, Expense Focus Model)
- Making the extraordinary expenses fund more accessible
- Childcare at courthouses
- Lodging for jurors in instances where traveling to/from court is difficult or it would be very dark in an area where driving at night is unsafe
- Court shuttle in counties without good public transport
- Potentially, remote processes for civil cases
- Privacy and safety concerns for jurors
- Unclear if there’s more to address beyond juror anonymity
- Having access to post-jury duty counseling to address post-trial anxiety/guilt and vicarious trauma
- Andrew Smith for Representative Andersen suggested we could diversify support for these issues and that the task force should look into shared funding models
- We could maybe explore a partnership with the state bar (they have a role in education and outreach we could tap into)
- Potentially having dedicated funding in bar dues that lawyers pay
- Would that be appropriate?
Juror Compensation
- Review Juror Compensation in Oregon
- Chair McCullough presented on Oregon’s juror compensation history
- Reviewed changes in juror pay (per diem and mileage) from 1955 to 2002, both what they were then and adjusted per the Consumer Price Index to see how much that would be in 2026
- Noted differences in pay between circuit courts, justice courts, and municipal courts, as well as distinctions for courts of record
- Discussed how the implementation of the Grand Bargain impacted the shift from counties paying versus the state paying
- Noted that the extraordinary expenses payment was created in 1999
- Discussed the implementation of requiring jurors for circuit courts to waive fees, but not mileage, if their employer paid
- Juror compensation amounts in circuit courts were last adjusted in 2002
- What It Would Cost to Increase Compensation
- Ran out of time, we will discuss this at the next meeting
- National Landscape
- Jawwaad Johnson, Director for Center of Jury Studies, NCSC, and Miriam Hamilton, Senior Research Analyst, NCSC, introduced themselves
- Hamilton shared slides showing the minimum flat per diem juror fee across multiple states
- States tend to have either a flat rate or a locally based rate where they pay be a minimum amount of pay
- Most have daily rates, but some pay per hour based on minimum wage
- Hamilton reviewed the payment models of several different states
- Not many states have increased juror compensation itself, rather they have tried to alleviate barriers by doing things such as providing free childcare, increasing mileage and parking reimbursements, etc.
- Jawwaad noted that many states are looking into the issue of juror compensation and holistic approaches to removing barriers to jury service
- Failure to appear/respond rates for jurors are high across the country
- Example: New Jersey started adding a QR code on the summons to provide information about jury service to jurors before they get to court
- Improving juror education by educating people on their rights as jurors and, if selected, their duties, length of term, etc. and the direct contact information for their local jury management office
- Example: In New Jersey, juror orientation is now recorded and made remote and accessible to all jurors when they receive their summons
- Brock asked if NCSC has statistics on how the discussed changes other states have made has impacted juror attendance/response rates (the legislature would want to know this if the task force will be asking for funds)
- Jawwaad noted that North Dakota is collecting appearance statistics, but they haven’t shared their findings with NCSC
- Jawwaad noted they may be more likely to share that with another state system instead
- Chair McCullough noted HB 4844 (Illinois) had passed both chambers and was awaiting the Governor’s signature, but Jawwaad was not sure if it will be signed
- Illinois also has a law that you can’t be required to work the night shift if you have jury duty the next day
- Chair McCullough noted Oregon does not have this, but it may be a suggestion this task force could make
- Dooley noted that that clause has been in some union contracts he has worked on, and that, while hard for the employer, it is a benefit to employees
- Tolbert asked if NCSC has been able to compare attendance rates to the different compensation formats that currently exist across different states
- NCSC does not currently have good data on that
- Anecdotally, NCSC has heard that courts implementing newer technology to pay jurors faster seems to affect jurors positively (e.g., getting paid instantly rather than waiting)
- López asked NCSC, based on what they’ve seen across the country, what they think the perfect system would entail
- Hamilton cited:
- North Dakota increasing juror pay to $100/day
- New York, but their juror pay model is tied to employers paying a portion, which makes it harder to implement
- Arizonia's lengthy jury trial fund
- Williams asked if any states have looked into putting the cost of juror pay in civil jury trials on the parties?
- Hamilton noted she has heard that idea in brainstorming sessions, but was not sure it had been implemented anywhere
- Smith seconded Willams’ cost splitting idea
- Senator Manning asked if a court filing fee could be used to address that? (e.g., adding $1 to that fee to go towards jurors)
- Chair McCullough agreed the idea is worth discussing further and noted it would be added to the task force’s list of various ideas
- Tolbert noted it’s important that we broaden the pool of potential jurors, particularly to try to include the unhoused population
- It's supposed to be a jury of the defendant’s peers, and, especially in criminal cases, many of the parties Tolbert represents are unhoused individuals
- Unclear how this would be done, but it’s something to think about
- Chair McCullough asked Hamilton if other states have done this?
- Hamilton has not seen this done
- Harvis noted that improving source lists (such as including those receiving public benefits) may help
- OJD has not historically done an evaluation of its source lists
- If anyone has more questions or data requests for NCSC, send them to Chair McCullough and she can pass them along
Where Are We Going From Here
- Further discuss juror compensation
- Impacts of trauma and stress from jury service
- Longer lengths of service
- Public education
- Accessibility
- Peremptory challenges
Public Comment
Next Meeting
- Date: July 14, 2026
- Time: 11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
- Via: Webex Webinar
Task Force on Removing Barriers to Jury Service
Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules
General Provisions
- ORS 10.090 Prohibited acts by employers against jurors; notice to jurors; remedy for violations.
- (1) An employer commits an unlawful employment practice under ORS chapter 659A if the employer discharges, threatens to discharge, intimidates or coerces any employee by reason of the employee’s service or scheduled service as a juror on a grand jury, trial jury or jury of inquest.
- (2) An employer may not require that an employee use vacation leave, sick leave or annual leave for time spent by the employee in responding to a summons for jury duty, and the employer shall allow the employee to take leave without pay for time spent by the employee in responding to a summons for jury duty.
- (3) This section may not be construed to alter or affect an employer’s policies or agreements with employees concerning employees’ wages during times when an employee serves or is scheduled to serve as a juror.
- (4) When summoning jurors, the person whose duty it is under the law to summon shall notify each juror of the juror’s rights under this section.
- (5) An employee who alleges a violation of subsection (1) of this section may bring a civil action under ORS 659A.885 or may file a complaint with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries in the manner provided by ORS 659A.820.
- ORS 10.092 Insurance coverage for employee during jury service; unlawful employment practice.
- (1) An employer who employs 10 or more persons commits an unlawful employment practice under ORS chapter 659A if:
- (a) The employer ceases to provide health, disability, life or other insurance coverage for an employee during times when the employee serves or is scheduled to serve as a juror; and
- (b) The employee elected to have coverage continued while the employee served or was scheduled to serve as a juror, and the employee provided notice of that election to the employer in compliance with the employer’s policy for notification.
- (2) Notwithstanding ORS 652.610 (3), if, following an election described in subsection (1) of this section, an employer is required or elects to pay any part of the costs of providing health, disability, life or other insurance coverage for the employee that should have been paid by the employee, the employer may deduct from the employee’s pay such amounts upon the employee’s return to work until the amount the employer advanced toward the payments is paid. The total amount deducted for insurance under this subsection may not exceed 10 percent of the employee’s gross pay each pay period.
- (3) Notwithstanding ORS 652.610 (3), if the employer pays any part of the costs of providing health, disability, life or other insurance coverage for an employee under subsection (2) of this section, and the employee ceases to work for the employer before the total amount the employer advanced toward the payments is paid, the employer may deduct the remaining amounts from any amounts owed by the employer to the employee or may seek to recover those amounts by any other legal means.
- (4) An employee who alleges a violation of this section may bring a civil action under ORS 659A.885 or may file a complaint with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries in the manner provided by ORS 659A.820.
Benefits and Claims (Generally)
- ORS 657.155 Benefit eligibility conditions; rules.
- (1) An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the Director of the Employment Department finds that:
- (a) The individual has registered for work at and thereafter has continued to report at an employment office in accordance with such rules as the director may prescribe. However, the director may, by rule, waive or alter either or both of the requirements of this subsection as to individuals attached to regular jobs and as to such other types of cases or situations with respect to which the director finds that compliance with such requirements would be oppressive, or would be inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter; provided, that no such rule conflicts with ORS 657.255.
- (b) The individual has made a claim for benefits with respect to such week in accordance with ORS 657.260.
- (c) The individual is able to work, is available for work, and is actively seeking and unable to obtain suitable work. No individual participating in a community work and training program, as defined in ORS 411.855, shall, solely by reason thereof, be unavailable for work within the meaning of this section.
- (d) The individual has been unemployed for a waiting period of one week, unless the Governor has waived the required waiting period as provided in ORS 401.186.
- (e) The individual is not disqualified from benefits or ineligible for benefits under any other section of this chapter.
- (f) The individual is qualified for benefits under ORS 657.150.
- (2)
- (a) An individual who leaves the individual’s normal labor market area for the major portion of any week is presumed to be unavailable for work within the meaning of this section.
- (b) The presumption described in paragraph (a) of this subsection may be overcome if the individual establishes to the satisfaction of the director that the individual:
- (A) Has conducted a bona fide search for work and has been reasonably accessible to suitable work in the labor market area in which the individual spent the major portion of the week to which the presumption applies; or
- (B) Was required to be outside the individual’s normal labor market area to apply for suitable employment within the individual’s normal labor market.
- (3) The director shall either promptly allow credit or pay benefits for any week for which benefits are claimed or promptly give notice of denial thereof in the manner provided in ORS 657.267 and 657.268.
Unemployment Insurance Benefits and Claims
- 471-030-0120 Jury Duty
- For purposes of ORS 657.155(1)(c), an individual who is in all respects otherwise eligible for unemployment insurance benefits shall not be denied benefits solely by reason of serving on jury duty provided:
- (1) The individual does not miss an opportunity to perform suitable work as a result of jury duty; and
- (2) The individual actively sought work during the hours and days of the week in which the individual was not engaged in serving on jury duty.
Overview of Potential Policy Solutions
Barriers to Jury Service and Policy Options
For July 14, 2026, Meeting
Barriers
- Financial burden and low compensation
- Transportation and parking
- Employment and educational responsibilities
- Loss of insurance coverage
- Unemployment rules
- Caregiving costs and responsibilities (children and other dependents)
- Health issues
- Accessibility (physical, language, etc.)
- Trauma and anxiety triggered by the facts of the case and/or case type
- Juror privacy and safety
- Longer terms of service/multi-day trials
- Lack of inclusion in jury source lists (particularly for unhoused individuals)
- Lack of understanding and public education about:
- The rights, roles, and expectations for jurors
- The importance of jury service
- Negative court and jury experiences
- Long wait times at the court when called in for service
- Other negative experiences
- Psychological/behavioral barriers
- Limited bandwidth
- Lack of certainty about process and length of service
- Fear/distrust of the court system
- Forgetting
- Peremptory challenges & discrimination
- Criminal convictions
- Statutory eligibility (conviction eligibility, citizenship, age, etc.) and excusal/deferral criteria
Policy
- Compensation
- Increase rate of compensation per day paid by the State and/or cities/counties:
- Flat rate for all days of service
- Graduated rate that increases after 2 days of service
- Increased rate for lengthy trials (after X days of service)
- Increased rate for grand jury service
- Provide for ongoing increases based on Consumer Price Index, local income rates, or some other metric
- Tier juror compensation based on income
- Employer pays regular rate of pay for days serving jury duty
- Could be made applicable only to employers of X or more employees
- Tax credit for employers who pay employees while they attend jury service
- Cost-sharing models
- Require parties in civil cases to contribute toward the cost of paying juror fees
- Add a fee to attorney bar dues to help pay juror fees
- Employer pays a portion of juror fees and state pays a portion
- Increase filing fees to raise funds for juror compensation
- Reimburse jurors for parking expenses unless free parking is provided by the court
- Create a stipend for child/dependent care expenses
- Make improvements to the extraordinary expenses program to make it more accessible
- Provide more information to jurors about the existence of the program
- Create clearer guidelines for what is reimbursable through the program (e.g., dependent care, lodging for jurors when travel is long/difficult/unsafe)
- Simplify the procedures for obtaining funds through the program
- Consider special circumstance funds, like a Lengthy Trial Fund
- Improve payment methods so jurors receive compensation faster
- Implement a pilot program in X counties to study the impact of increased compensation on response and excusal rates
- Data collection and analysis requirement tied to any increase in compensation to study how much of an impact it has on response and excusal rates
- Transportation
- Provide a court shuttle:
- In counties that don’t have adequate public transportation
- For jurors with physical disabilities that make travel difficult
- Agreements between courts and public transport services to allow jurors to use their summons as a bus pass
- Agreements between courts and businesses for using parking lots that are closer to the court and/or to use summons as a parking pass
- Consider staggered reporting times or delayed starts for families with limited transportation or children in school (i.e. single car family, school drop off and pick up)
- Public Education
- Advertisements /public service announcements (print, radio, TV)
- Short educational videos and other online collateral to be used on OJD’s website, partner websites, social media
- Provide educational materials (posters, pamphlets, videos, lesson plans) to schools and educators
- High school, college, educational associations
- Topics for all of the above:
- Importance of jury service
- Likelihood of short length of service
- What to expect when serving on a jury
- Mock jury trial programs, particularly for youth
- Ensure online information linked to on summons includes a typical agenda (run of the day) so jurors know what to expect
- Collaborate with BOLI on education for employers/employees
- Revamp juror orientation video (last updated in 2018)
- Judges in the classroom; increase courthouse tours/experiences and jury simulations
- Community outreach – bring court professionals to community areas (i.e. elder care facilities to speak on juror scams, community centers to speak about civic education, library or public spaces for open dialogues)
- Employment Protections
- Add provision to employment protections that states that employees are not required to work night shift on the same day they have jury service (from Illinois law)
- Strengthen protections relate to health insurance coverage continuity during jury service:
- Reduce or eliminate the threshold number of employees before the protections kick in
- Make it clear that hours spent serving on jury duty must count toward any minimum number of hours people have to work to get health insurance coverage during the time period that includes jury service
- Remove the requirement that jurors “elect” to keep insurance coverage and notify their employer of the election in compliance with the employer’s policy, replacing it with a requirement that the employee simply notify the employer that they have been called for jury service
- Explore whether a change is needed to the provisions that allow an employer to recover the cost of insurance “that should have been paid by the employee.” Does this mean the employer can require a person to pay for the cost of maintaining insurance during jury service?
- Allow a person to obtain unemployment insurance during jury duty, even if they miss an opportunity to perform suitable work
- Require waiver of juror fee if a person obtains unemployment insurance or allow a person to obtain both
- Create sample juror leave policies for employers
- Put them on the Oregon Judicial Department’s website and/or BOLI’s jury information website
- Trauma/Anxiety
- Provide online juror qualification questionnaires in advance of going to court to determine if a particular case or case type may be triggering or traumatic for a given potential juror
- Protect jurors’ rights during jury selection and offer questioning alternatives for privacy/safety
- For grand jurors and jurors in cases (civil and criminal) involving violence and sexual assault:
- Provide resource lists
- Provide post-venire and pre-trial training for jurors on self-care, secondary trauma and/or trauma-informed deliberation
- Provide post-trial debrief
- Provide access to post-jury duty counseling and/or facilitated group sessions
- Training for judges and/or attorneys on trauma-informed trial practices
- Accessibility
- Provide language translation for people who don’t speak English as a first language and enact a statute similar to ORS 10.115 (interpreters for individuals with disabilities) that would allow language interpreters to be present for jury deliberations
- Logistical Changes
- Reduce time people spend waiting
- Stagger juror panel sign-ins to avoid long security/check-in lines
- Utilize technology to keep people from lengthy wait periods
- Provide an option to let the court know if you can only attend a one-day trial
- Implement new Uniform Trial Court Rules so the court knows further in advance which cases will need jurors
- Work towards the goal of one-day/one trial across counties – reduce separate orientation days
- Remote juror orientation, questionnaires and/or jury selection
- Increase trial certainty and set stronger restrictions for Call Hearings
- Miscellaneous
- Change “master jury list” to “primary jury list” or something similar
- Collect post-jury duty feedback to identify additional areas that may be improved
- Use additional source lists (e.g., to try to include people who are unhoused)
- Conduct a source list evaluation to review for accuracy and validity and identify need or potential of other source lists
- Conduct a review of the USPS mailing accuracy and validity, including the rates of Oregonians utilizing the National Change of Address program (related to undeliverable rates)
- Reduce or eliminate peremptory challenges
- Special considerations for trials (trials with people in custody, self-represented/pro se litigants. Lengthy or high-profile trials)
- Educate communities on jury scams, ensure protections to jurors whenever possible