237.620
Membership of police officers and firefighters in Public Employees Retirement
System; death benefits.
(1) Except as provided in this section, all public employers of police officers
or firefighters shall provide retirement benefits to those employees under the
Public Employees Retirement System.
(2)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a public employer of police
officers or firefighters need not provide retirement benefits to those
employees under the Public Employees Retirement System if the Public Employees
Retirement Board determines that the public employer provides retirement
benefits to each of the following classes of employees that are equal to or
better than the retirement benefits that would be provided to the equivalent
classes of employees under the Public Employees Retirement System:
(a) Police
officers or firefighters who are entitled to receive benefits only under ORS
chapter 238 and who established membership in the system before January 1,
1996, as described in ORS 238.430 (2);
(b) Police
officers or firefighters who are entitled to receive benefits only under ORS
chapter 238 and who established membership in the system on or after January 1,
1996, and before August 29, 2003, as described in ORS 238A.025 (4); and
(c) Police
officers or firefighters who establish membership in the system on or after
August 29, 2003, and are entitled to benefits only under the Oregon Public
Service Retirement Plan.
(3) A public
employer that provides retirement benefits under subsection (2) of this section
must provide that:
(a) If an
employee to whom the public employer provides retirement benefits dies before
the employee’s effective date of retirement, a former spouse of the employee is
entitled to a death benefit if and to the extent provided for in the terms of
any judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation, or the
terms of any court order or court-approved property settlement agreement
incident to any judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of
separation, as if the former spouse were the surviving spouse of the employee,
as provided in ORS 237.600.
(b) If an
employee to whom the public employer provides retirement benefits dies before
the employee’s effective date of retirement and has a dependent child who is
not supported by the former spouse who is treated as the surviving spouse under
paragraph (a) of this subsection, the dependent child is entitled to a death
benefit.
(4)
Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, a former spouse or dependent
child of an employee is not entitled to a death benefit if, before the death of
the employee, the former spouse or dependent child has commenced receiving a
retirement benefit provided for in the terms of any judgment of annulment or
dissolution of marriage or of separation, or the terms of any court order or
court-approved property settlement agreement incident to any judgment of
annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation, as provided in ORS
237.600.
(5) At such times
as may be established by board rule, the Public Employees Retirement Board
shall review the retirement benefits provided by a public employer of police
officers or firefighters that does not provide retirement benefits for those
employees under the Public Employees Retirement System. The review must be
conducted at the expense of the public employer. Based on the review, the board
shall determine whether the public employer complies with the requirements of
subsection (2) of this section. If the board determines that the public
employer does not comply with the requirements of subsection (2) of this
section for any class of employees described in subsection (2) of this section,
the public employer must provide that class of employees with retirement
benefits adequate to meet the requirements of subsection (2) of this section.
If the public employer fails to provide those benefits, any employee within the
class may bring an action in circuit court to compel compliance with the
requirements of this section. [1971 c.692 §3; 1973 c.704 §16; 1975 c.449 §13;
1989 c.888 §2; 1991 c.67 §56; 2001 c.945 §76; 2003 c.625 §33; 2007 c.622 §1;
2015 c.506 §4]
237.630 [1971 c.692 §4; 1975 c.449 §7;
renumbered 237.173 in 1991]
Notes of Decisions
City of La Grande v. Pub. Employes Ret. Bd., 576 P.2d 1204 (Or. 1978).
· cites it 3× “ORS 237.620, ORS 243.055. The administrative machinery of these statutes is state administration, not compelled local administration.”
Salem Firefighters Local 314 v. Pub. Employes Ret. Bd., 702 P.2d 439 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 13× “ORS 237.620(4). 1 Petitioners’ principal contentions turn on the proposition that the board’s rule, codified as OAR 459-30-025, does not allow the comprehensive comparison of the city’s and PERS’s benefits that ORS 237.”
Salem Firefighters Local 314 v. Pub. Employes Ret. Bd., 300 Or. 663 (Or. 1986).
· cites it 6× “” ORS 237.620(4). The question before us is whether the Board (PERB) misinterpreted the words “public employer provides retirement benefits * * * equal to or better than” when it confined its comparison of the City of Salem’s retirement plan with that provided by PERS only to…”
Oregon Fire/Police Ret. Comm. v. Oregon Pub. Employes' Ret. Bd., 676 P.2d 878 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 3× “” ORS 237.620(4). Petitioners, the Oregon Fire/Police Retirement Committee, seek review of a decision of the Court of Appeals that sustained the validity of certain rules of the board (PERB) interpreting this statutory requirement.”
Oregon Fire/Police Ret. Comm. v. Oregon Pub. Employes' Ret. Bd., 662 P.2d 729 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 3× “620(4), with ensuring that any retirement program of public employers for police officers and fire fighters provide benefits which are equal to or better than the benefits provided under Public Employes Retirement System (PERS).”
Sulliger v. Lane Cnty., 79 P.3d 888 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The said duties, power and activities were the regular duties of police officers as defined in OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2) and ORS 237.620(2)." (Emphasis added.)”
Brooks v. City of Beaverton, 679 P.2d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Finally, plaintiff contends that he has a statutory right under ORS 237.620 to greater benefits than provided by the insurance contract.”
Springfield Firefighters' Ass'n v. Pub. Employes' Ret. Bd., 760 P.2d 1372 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 7× “Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Public Employes Retirement Board (PERB) determining that retirement benefits provided by the City of Springfield are equal to or better than benefits under the Public Employes Retirement System (PERS) and, therefore, that the city is…”
Hart v. Washington Cnty. Rural Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1, 630 P.2d 390 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “The original plan was apparently hurriedly devised to avoid participation in the Public Employes’ Retirement System as required by ORS 237.620. 1 The original plan contained liberal benefits for retirees.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 237.620(1) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 237.620(2) — 1 case
Sulliger v. Lane Cnty., 79 P.3d 888 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“The said duties, power and activities were the regular duties of police officers as defined in OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2) and ORS 237.620(2)." (Emphasis added.)”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 237.620(3) — 1 case
Springfield Firefighters' Ass'n v. Pub. Employes' Ret. Bd., 760 P.2d 1372 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Public Employes Retirement Board (PERB) determining that retirement benefits provided by the City of Springfield are equal to or better than benefits under the Public Employes Retirement System (PERS) and, therefore, that the city is…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 237.620(4) — 6 cases
Salem Firefighters Local 314 v. Pub. Employes Ret. Bd., 702 P.2d 439 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“ORS 237.620(4). 1 Petitioners’ principal contentions turn on the proposition that the board’s rule, codified as OAR 459-30-025, does not allow the comprehensive comparison of the city’s and PERS’s benefits that ORS 237.”
Salem Firefighters Local 314 v. Pub. Employes Ret. Bd., 300 Or. 663 (Or. 1986).
“” ORS 237.620(4). The question before us is whether the Board (PERB) misinterpreted the words “public employer provides retirement benefits * * * equal to or better than” when it confined its comparison of the City of Salem’s retirement plan with that provided by PERS only to…”
Oregon Fire/Police Ret. Comm. v. Oregon Pub. Employes' Ret. Bd., 676 P.2d 878 (Or. 1984).
“” ORS 237.620(4). Petitioners, the Oregon Fire/Police Retirement Committee, seek review of a decision of the Court of Appeals that sustained the validity of certain rules of the board (PERB) interpreting this statutory requirement.”
Oregon Fire/Police Ret. Comm. v. Oregon Pub. Employes' Ret. Bd., 662 P.2d 729 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“620(4), with ensuring that any retirement program of public employers for police officers and fire fighters provide benefits which are equal to or better than the benefits provided under Public Employes Retirement System (PERS).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.