Actionable discrimination claims arise under statute. You must fit within one of the prohibited discrimination classes. You have not identified that you are protected by the statute. I believe that you would have to sue the agency. Even if you sue the ED, they may turn around and tender the defense to the agency anyway. They will state they were acting in furtherance of the entity and are likely protected by indemnity provisions. Any attorney that would take the case would also need as many prospective defendants with deep pockets to make the effort worth it. Your state probably has a human rights commission that you can present your case to for investigation which won't cost you anything.
You have asked us to state an opinion based upon stated facts. You have not provided us with any documents, pictures, witness statements or other admissible evidence. The opinions stated are based upon general principles of law unless otherwise stated, which may or may not be applicable in your jurisdiction. Controlling law is also subject to change or reversal at any time. Any such changes may be retroactive and could significantly modify the statements and opinions expressed herein. Similarly, any change in the facts and assumptions upon which this opinion is based could modify the conclusions. We opine only as to matters expressly set forth, no opinions should be inferred as to other matters or to treatment of matters not specifically addressed. This opinion represents our best judgment as to the probable outcome of the issues discussed and is not binding on the courts or upon your adversaries. We can give no assurance that an adversary would not challenge our conclusions and prevail in the courts in a manner to cause adverse consequences. With respect to some of the matters discussed in the opinion, existing legal precedent may provide very little legal guidance. Although the opinions and views expressed are based on our best interpretations of existing law and what we believe a court would probably conclude if presented with the applicable issues, we can give no assurance that our interpretations would be followed if the issues became the subject of judicial or administrative proceedings. Realization of certain benefits described is subject to the risk that a tenant may challenge the treatment and that a court may sustain the challenge. Because you may bear the burden of proof required to establish a fact, the opinions expressed assume the you will undertake the effort and expense to present fully the case in support of any matter that you have asserted and an opponent might challenge. None of the advice provided here may be used to avoid tax liability, interest or penalties. If you want that level of assurance you will need to allow us to perform the full opportunity to explore the facts and law applicable to your specific circumstances. I provide answers here to allow people to see the style of communication and type of analysis applied to factual statements.
Discrimination, for legal purposes, is not found automatically when one person is treated differently from other people. Discrimination claims arise only when one person is treated differently from others by virtue of that person's membership in a protected category - that is, because of their race, gender, religion, &c. Nothing you've said here indicates that you were charged rent for one of these reasons - unless you can prove that this was the reason, there's no discrimination claim against either the agency or its director. (It's also not clear to me how you know that the director lied about this. You'd need some pretty substantial proof for any kind of legal claim.)
Bear in mind also that if you sue this agency, you will almost certainly lose your job there. That's not how it's supposed to work, necessarily, but that's generally what happens in practice.
Please read the following notice: <br> <br> Jay Bodzin is licensed to practice law in the State of Oregon and the Federal District of Oregon, and cannot give advice about the laws of other jurisdictions. All comments on this site are intended for informational purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. No posts or comments on this site are in any way confidential. Each case is unique. You are advised to have counsel at all stages of any legal proceeding, and to speak with your own lawyer in private to get advice about your specific situation. <br> <br> Jay Bodzin, Northwest Law Office, 2075 SW First Avenue, Suite 2J, Portland, OR 97201 | Telephone: 503-227-0965 | Facsimile: 503-345-0926 | Email: firstname.lastname@example.org | Online: www.northwestlawoffice.com
As the others have said, this does not appear to be a form of discrimination which is illegal, unless you were charged rent because of your race, religion, gender, etc., which does not appear to be the case. If it were, everyone who ever held that position would need to receive the same compensation and benefits, and typically those items are negotiated and vary from time to time.
There may be some interesting questions as to whether the compensation complies with Oregon law, particularly if you were on call around the clock and lived on premises for the employer's convenience. You might want to contact an employment lawyer or the Bureau of Labor for some clarification on that point.
I believe your claim lies against the employer, not the director, although perhaps the director also has some liability if there was some intentional wrong doing on the director's part.
This comment is general in nature and is not intended as legal advice. It does not create an attorney client relationship and obviously is not confidential. You should contact an attorney in your area who can review with you all of the relevant facts and give you specific legal advice.