Skip to content
The COVID Project
  1. Library
  2. Standing duties: Oregon
  3. DUT-OR-018

Ex. DUT-OR-018 Standing duty Primary source read

Central Pastime, LLC v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, 342 Or App 391 (Aug. 6, 2025) (A180094; OLCCV024): judicial review affirming a 72-day liquor-license suspension for failing to require employees and customers to wear face coverings on Dec. 2, 2020 (OHA July 24, 2020 guidance) and Mar. 27, 2021 (EO 20-66)

In the Matter of the Full-On Premises Sales License Held By Central Pastime, LLC, dba Central Pastime, Petitioner, v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, Respondent

Oregon Court of Appeals (Shorr, P.J., with Pagan, J., and O'Connor, J.) · Oregon (Court)

Open exhibit (PDF, 120 KB)Source (opens in a new tab)
The COVID Project

The record

Jurisdiction
Oregon
Level
Court
Authority
ORS 183.335(5); ORS 471.030, 471.040, 471.175, 471.730; Executive Orders 20-27 and 20-66 (Ex. OR-020, OR-035); OHA Statewide Mask, Face Shield, Face Covering Guidance of July 24, 2020 (Ex. OR-025); OAR 845-006-0345(15), (17)(a); Along Came Trudy LLC v. OLCC, 330 Or App 295 (2024)
Issued
2025-08-06 Aug. 6, 2025
Effective
2025-08-06 (decision); the conduct adjudicated occurred Dec. 2, 2020 and Mar. 27, 2021 (read as 2025-08-06)
End
final as of the exhibit date (no later history checked)
In force
Aug. 6, 2025 (no end date recorded; counted as in force for 120 days)
Quarters
2020 Q42021 Q1
Limitation types
Face-covering requirementWorkplace rulesOther
Addressees
  • specified businesses: OLCC licensees (eating and drinking establishments) and their employees and agents ('No employee or agent of a licensee may violate any provision of this rule')
Character
adjudication
Collection
Standing duties: Oregon DUT-OR

Operative words

The public health threat posed by the spread of COVID-19 provided the justification for requiring compliance with masking and physical distancing standards.... [quoting OLCC:] "Through liquor license inspections, OLCC staff have observed some licensees willfully ignore and fail to enforce OHA guidance.... This creates a serious and immediate danger to public health and safety"

Penalty

72-day license suspension affirmed (OAR 845-006-0345(15), (17)(a)).

What it required

Upheld the validity of OLCC's temporary rule OAR 845-006-0345(17) (July 31, 2020), which made a licensee's failure to enforce the OHA face-covering and distancing guidance a license violation, and of OAR 845-006-0345(15) (violation of a gubernatorial order), applying Along Came Trudy on identical arguments, and affirmed a 72-day suspension of a licensee that on Dec. 2, 2020 'failed to require employees and customers to wear masks or other face coverings as directed in the OHA July 24 guidance' and on Mar. 27, 2021 'again failed to require employees and patrons to wear masks at all times when not eating or drinking, contrary to the Governor's Executive Order (EO) 20-66'; the court recited OLCC's finding that licensees' failure to enforce the OHA guidance 'creates a serious and immediate danger to public health and safety' and that EO 20-27 authorized agencies 'to issue guidance for particular sectors of the economy.' Character as recorded: adjudication (order_penalty layer).

Retrieval note

Official slip opinion from the Oregon Judicial Department's digital collection (ContentDM item 39748) with Oregon Reports pagination; the OLCC statement of need is quoted at 396 and the court's conclusion at 396-97. The decision post-dates the period; it is pleaded for what it establishes about the law in force on Dec. 2, 2020 and Mar. 27, 2021 (the OHA guidance and EO 20-66 bound the licensee to require face coverings of employees and customers).

A record of The COVID Project. The instrument's text is the source's; the summary fields are The COVID Project's reading of it. Not legal advice.