Hooton, Wold & Okrent, LLP v. Employment Dept.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Employment Law
  • Date Filed: 02-23-2017
  • Case #: A153773
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 657.471(9), simultaneous employment is not required and the reason for eligibility is not limited to the period of time immediately preceding the application for benefits.

Petitioner appealed the order of an ALJ that affirmed the Employment Dept.'s denial of Petitioner's request for "relief of charges" under ORS 657.471(9). ORS 657.471(9) provides that "Benefits paid to an individual may not be charged to a base year employer if: (a) The employer furnished part-time work to the individual during the base year; (b) The individual has become eligible for benefits because of loss of employment with one or more other employers; (c) The employer has continued to furnish part-time work to the individual in substantially the same amount as during the individual's base year; and (d) The employer requests relief of charges within 30 days of the date the notice provided for in ORS 657.266 is mailed or delivered to the employer." The ALJ concluded that Petitioner failed to satisfy requirements (a) and (b), concluding that paragraph (a) required simultaneous employment with two employers and the employee’s eligibility for a second year of unemployment benefits was not because of her loss of employment. Analyzing the text and context of ORS 657.471(9)(a), the Court concluded that the paragraph does not require simultaneous employment. The Court also held that paragraph (b) is not limited to the period of time immediately preceding the application for benefits; had employee not lost her previous job, she would not have been eligible for a second year of benefits. The ALJ erred in concluding that Petitioner did not meet the requirements of ORS 657.471(9). Reversed and remanded.  

Advanced Search