Litigating Variable Compensation and Incentive Payment Cases in Oregon: Is it a commission or a bonus, and when is the obligation to payment absolute? 

This article is a comprehensive, practitioner-driven analysis of commission wage claims, variable compensation disputes, and incentive payment litigation under Oregon law, written by Grant Engrav of Engrav Law Office LLP. Drawing on more than a decade of litigating high-stakes commission and executive compensation cases—including wins in the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit—the article dissects how courts distinguish commissions versus bonuses, when compensation is legally earned versus merely due, and why poorly drafted incentive plans routinely expose employers to statutory penalties, attorney fees, and full wage recovery. The analysis integrates contract law, Oregon wage statutes, and real-world accounting mechanics to explain how compensation that “looks discretionary” often functions as earned wages as a matter of law.

Using detailed case studies and deep analysis of leading Oregon decisions—Martin v. DHL, Thompson v. Burr, Walker v. American Optical, Schulstad, and Larsson v. DXC Technology—the article provides practical guidance for salespeople, executives, founders, and in-house counsel navigating commission vesting, post-termination pay, quota structures, and incentive formulas. It also offers concrete drafting insights for employers seeking to design lawful commission agreements and incentive compensation plans without triggering unintended wage liability. The article is a good resource for anyone dealing with unpaid commissions, executive incentive compensation, or sales compensation plan disputes in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. The article is not legal advice.